X.Org Foundation Election Candidates

[Matthias Hopf]

On Mar 4, 2012 12:32 AM, "Luc Verhaegen" <libv at skynet.be> wrote:
> Q1) Election time is upon us again, and once again, we have to go into
> elections blindfold. We have the irclogs of the last 2 years, but we
> have no State of the union, we have no financial information, we have no
> summary of the works in progress. How do the candidates feel about this?

Blindfold is much too strong a word. Having open financial information
would be beneficial for everyone, that is true. A state of the union isn't
really necessary, as the board irc meetings are published, and there isn't
much going on elsewhere.

> How do the returning candidates feel that their work of the past two
> years cannot be properly evaluated?

I don't think the situation is much different from other OS organizations -
you can only evaluate by closely watching how those guys behave in the
public.

> Q2) As the organizer of (once again) the X.org DevRoom, and co-organizer
> (together with Egbert Eich and Matthias Hopf) of XDC 2012 in Nuremberg,
> i run into a spot of trouble. The reality is that the importance of the
> actual Xserver is shrinking, with respect to all the other things that
> are going on in what once was mostly the domain of the Xserver (drivers,
> mesa, wayland, ...). The schedule for our devroom at fosdem was like 50%
> drivers, 25% wayland, 25% other things, of which 1 talk really could be
> marked as purely X. My issue with the current constellation is that
> people tend to associate the X.org Foundation with just the Xserver,
> which makes it increasingly difficult for me to label the events i
> organize with just "X.org". I kind of, implicitely, see the X.org
> Foundation as the guardian of all the listed technologies, but this is
> not so clear outside of the members of the X.org foundation.

X.org never was and never should be an organization only about the Xserver,
but rather about related core technologies (drivers, libraries, protocols,
...)
If you think that the public view is different about this topic, we should
ask ourselves how this view can be 'corrected'. If you got any good ideas,
let them be discussed!

> I am not sure whether a change to the bylaws for that would be
> necessary, or would just an official statement made by the new X.org
> foundation board, a statement that expands the reach of the X.org
> Foundation to include related technologies, be sufficient.

I don't think that any change is necessary.

> Apparently there was some Wayland event before the actual FOSDEM
> conference. I doubt that many X.org foundation members, and X.org
> foundation board members are aware of this today, let alone were aware
> of it beforehand. I do not think that any announcement of this made it
> out onto the wayland mailinglists, or whether it was really meant to
> only have a small closed group of people who are key contributors to the
> wayland project. That is, if all of the wayland contributors were
> present, i have little visibility there.

What you describe here doesn't look like anything we have to deal with, but
rather just bad planning on some events. Sorry that you had to deal with
these issues, things like that just shouldn't happen...

Matthias
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://foundation.x.org/archives/members/attachments/20120305/15cc4c19/attachment.htm>