On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > ( what is weights and measures other then standards ) but that undesputable > fact aside I dont see how the failure of LSB as an standard which boils down > to it being drive/dominated by Red Hat and Novell/Suse and the lack of it > being capable of keeping up with changes in the GNU/Linux ecosystem, can be > applied to the work that is being done here or it being mapped one to one with > that work. Wearing my centos co-founder hat, I assure that there is no 'domination' there, and I've been present for more than a decade. There formerly was some, when an addition of Java was being pushed by some enterprise stakeholders [Sun was still free-standing at that time], but that is ancient history by now These days, there is just: participation. As to 'keeping up', the Fedora mantra of 'move fast, be willing to experiment and break stuff' is scarcely something a standards track should aspire to LSB starves from insufficient quantities of software engineering talent. Its processes are in all material respects open, and based on free and open sources. Anyone with the inclination can play along. A request for help gets a thoughtful answer and pointer in under 24 hr (mailing list), in under 8 hr (IRC), and in under a week (bug tracker triage). Wiki rights are accessible with a mere registration to stop spamming. We run an open weekly conferencall and minutes result and cross our mailing list We lost one FTE about a year ago, and there is just not enough horsepower. We ran a all day (I had to leave after six hours) planning event at the LF Collab summit, with G+ and dial inaccess, all duly noticed on our mailing list, and a grand total of 6 people participated Canonical seems to look solely to Posix these days. Fedora glances in our direction but does not seek LSB conformance certification, nor materially participate in our effort to get LSB 5 'out the door'. Debian is so glacial and enjoys flyspecking and squabbling (witness the recent 'systemd' dustup and vote, that they don't participate much. The SUSE enterprise product tests and participates; RHEL 7 will add a new approach to conformance if the beta is any sign, and has had a representative filing bugs with us. Oracle treats the OS as a foundation for its DB engine products, and does not really need an LSB imprimatur to sell its product But it is like the child's story of _The Little Red Hen_ ... all will eat the bread, but few really are willing to participate in its preparation. I can think of three people continuously present, triaging, and working bugs. That's it Probably we (LSB.next, so to speak) made a mistaken design choice to widen coverage at LSB 5 made two years ago, to chase later libraries (gtk / qt), rather than narrowing scope to core utility. But that was what the ISVs and the certifying entities said was needed then. I hacked back that wiki's list of deliverables, pretty ruthlessly over the past 9 months as we have worked on the release (feature based, rather than time boxed) I cannot think of a single third party open bug on 5 filed after the first beta drop, and it is ready to go once we complete the rest of our P1 items -- Russ herrold _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
