If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Leave a comment: