X.Org BoD meeting minutes 2015-07-23

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 10:03:36PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On 7/08/2015 21:32 , Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> Why is the removal of company membership limitation to 25% of the
>> board (yes, 1 in 4) deemed to be the only way to improve xorg foundation
>> board nominations and acceptance?
>
> where did anyone but you claim that?

Ok, so what is the reason for this change then? All i can tell is that 
this had an effect once or twice over the 10y run of the X.org 
foundation. I would not call that a hurdle, that's just a rule at work.

> > Why is this now suddenly an issue at a
>> time where some fresh blood was finally available for the board? Why are
>> other options or this past experience not properly analysed in this
>> thread? And, rhethorically, why is this discussion instead being
>> actively sidetracked?
>
> the limit is in the bylaws, a change would require a 2/3 member vote.
> We're changing the bylaws for the SPI merge anyway, so now is the time  
> to get changes in that have been an issue in the past, or that we find  
> useful.

An issue? Someone had to step down, and someone else stepped up. I would 
not call that an issue.

> It's not an actual issue right now, it is an opportunity to do it now  
> with less effort than it would otherwise be. if you would spend the  
> couple of minutes reading the IRC log instead of making stuff up from  
> the summary alone you would come to realise that.
>
> had the vote earlier this year passed, we wouldn't try to change it  
> because it'd be too much effort.
>
> there is no conspiracy, despite your efforts to cast it as one.

The board clearly was surprised by the 2/3rds rule for changing the 
bylaws. There was even a brief discussion about ignoring it.

Is this 2/3rds rule a similar "issue" that you wish to "fix"?

>> Secondly, a very nice example of how individual developers are not at
>> all independent of their company is the intel driver and mir story of a
>> few years ago. "it is unlikely to be an issue now" is not definitely not
>> true, which explains the weak formulation of the above sentence. (And
>> yes, i know that the intel+mir was about something technical and the
>> board is not technical, but that is besides the point here and it is
>> futile to further try to divert this topic into something else, again)
>
> no, it's a very important point. the board does not control the  
> technical direction. so you can compare apples and oranges all day long,  
> but at the end of the day, the board does not control the technical  
> direction.

Oh wow.

So the maintainer of the intel xorg graphics driver decided to include 
code to support a measurable part of the intel graphics drivers 
userbase. Due to intel internal political pressure he was forced to 
remove that code. A technical decision was very clearly undone for 
political reasons. An individual who happened to work for intel, was 
overruled for purely intel internal political reasons.

Now with the above case as an example, how can you go claim that "it is
unlikely to be an issue now"? And how can you, after the above has been 
pointed out, go and claim that the above is irrelevant for the Xorg 
Foundation board.

The Xorg foundation is not a technical organization, so there is no 
strive to do that what is technically most desirable. The Xorg 
foundation is about money and resource management, and is therefor very 
political in nature, and the strive should be to limit the influence of 
politics.

I find this, not only the original downplaying, but the later stringent 
denial of a countercase, either very shortsighted or intellectually 
dishonest.

>
>> And besides... The above is like stating "since obama is not
>> warmongering as much as some previous presidents once did, perhaps we
>> should adjust the constitution to allow him a third term". First off,
>> what assurance is there that the next one is not a warmonger? And it is
>> a very slippery slope from there to a pure dictatorship.
>
> This comparison has no merit, is quite frankly insulting and not worthy  
> of a reply. I'm out of this discussion.

Both the increase of the limitation of company membership, and the fact 
that bylaws change quota safegaurd was discussed due to the failed SPI 
vote, show very clearly the mindset of some people on the board. If you 
add to that the clear statement of a former boardmember that the Xorg 
foundation is irrelevant, and it is clear where this is headed.

Perhaps it is time to drop the guise, and the few figleaf activities, 
and simply own up that the Xorg Foundation is a means for intel to 
reduce taxes on some things, and for red hat to prop up its virtually 
non-existent travel budget, and that it lost its relevance for any other 
party.

Luc Verhaegen.