Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Issues Within The X.Org Foundation?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Issues Within The X.Org Foundation?

    Phoronix: Issues Within The X.Org Foundation?

    For the past two weeks elections have been going on by X.Org members to elect five people to serve as board of directors for the X.Org Foundation, the formal 501(c)(3) organization that backs the development of the X.Org project. The elections for the board of directors takes place annually replacing four of the eight members each time around, but this year the elections have been particularly interesting...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=Nzk5NA

  • #2
    Is this really a problem?

    A bunch of software engineers who have problems with attending meetings, documentation and finance.

    Sounds normal.

    Probably the problem would vanish within days if Intel or one of the other companies just sponsored an accountant. I wonder why that's not already happening, participation in Open Source Projects is not limited to engineers.

    Comment


    • #3
      FWIW:
      The Foundation is not a 501(c)(3) yet. It's still a Delaware LLC, in the process of transitioning to a 501(c)(3) with help from the SFLC, but this is slow going.

      Also, I said that I personally found it difficult to attend the meetings, as I'm the only one in Asia/Oceania. When it comes to scheduling meetings, you can really pick two out of America, Europe and Asia, so Australia lost out. This was fair enough, and one of the reasons I decided to leave. It doesn't impact anyone else on the board, past, present or in the current crop of candidates.

      Comment


      • #4
        It's Xorg not IntelOrg. As much as Intel contributes to open source they should still not be allowed any dominant positions within it.

        Comment


        • #5
          AFAIK there's already a rule for that, limiting the board to a maximum of two directors from any single company. Two out of 8 seems OK, doesn't it ?

          Comment


          • #6
            Who sits on the board from AMD/ATI?

            Comment


            • #7
              Sounds like they need a couple of non-company affiliated board members to

              a) be the voice of the end user
              b) be a watchdog on the funds

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by numasan View Post
                Who sits on the board from AMD/ATI?
                Pre-election, nobody from ATI/AMD. Alex (agd5f) was one of the candidates for this election, so after the votes are counted he might be on the board.

                That said, the board's activities seem to be pretty vendor-neutral so vendor affiliation doesn't seem like a big issue.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  Pre-election, nobody from ATI/AMD. Alex (agd5f) was one of the candidates for this election, so after the votes are counted he might be on the board.

                  That said, the board's activities seem to be pretty vendor-neutral so vendor affiliation doesn't seem like a big issue.
                  They are supposed to be, but how could we know that? We have almost no information on what happens.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by numasan View Post
                    Who sits on the board from AMD/ATI?
                    That would be an ATI candidate, in this case, as the other case would require one of the AMD GPGPU people to be involved (the same people who got you the evergreen ISA docs).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                      That said, the board's activities seem to be pretty vendor-neutral so vendor affiliation doesn't seem like a big issue.
                      right. regardless of who we work for, we act in the best interests (as we perceive it) of the Foundation and of X.Org as a whole. board members are explicitly acting as personal representatives, not as company/vendor representatives; i would not vote for someone who attempted to get elected to further their employer's interests.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by libv View Post
                        That would be an ATI candidate, in this case, as the other case would require one of the AMD GPGPU people to be involved (the same people who got you the evergreen ISA docs).
                        Don't think we have any X.org members from that group, maybe since you seem to know the AMD internal company structure so well you could talk to them and see if they have any interest in joining X.org or running for the board.

                        Dave.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X