This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- From: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>
- To: "Wichmann, Mats D" <mats dot d dot wichmann at intel dot com>
- Cc: Matt Taggart <taggart at carmen dot fc dot hp dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, anderson at freestandards dot org, lsb-wg at freestandards dot org
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 23:17:52 +0100
- Subject: RE: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- References: <A06801158AE07847B27A52C1A074BC1D04C912A0@fmsmsx404.amr.corp.intel.com>
On Gwe, 2004-07-30 at 22:03, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> Anyone who wants an LSB workgroup vote can qualify through a relatively
> low threshold of participation. That's in place only as an "educated
> voter" measure, not to try to keep people out. There's no "membership"
> or other barrier and you certainly don't have to be a vendor. The
> workgroup tries not to get to where votes are needed very often,
> however, so this rarely even comes up.
And back in the real world the major developers have better things to do
than this. Same problem as with parts of OSDL - they made they same
arguments but well I can still get a laugh in a room full of Linux
developers just by saying "Carrier Grade Linux".
The LSB workgroup is indeed quite open I agree, but it isn't
representative of the broader base. Whose fault that is doesn't actually
matter.