[yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board: April meeting minutes & new member info

Fri Apr 22 16:17:46 PDT 2016

"This can get tricky. Increasing resources/contributions might be on the
same scale as increasing the dues for some Members."

members have to decide if the project is worth money / commitment or is to let run its natural course, the true open source way.

Too few contributing members - not a true ecosystem effort.

In the end it is a matter of return on the investment - not enough return, I get it, no investment. 

I don't think we can provide guidelines, as advisory board, on how each member should measure the return on their investment in Yocto. 

We can certainly expect, as advisory board, that all members are equally contributing and / or participating and we can cast rules and provide options that would allow all kinds and sizes of members to participate in a way or in another.

But I think Jeffro wanted to discuss all this in a confcall - I promise not to send another email on this topic :-)

Talk to you soon.

D

________________________________________
From: akuster [akuster at mvista.com]
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 4:03 PM
To: COBBLEY, DAVID; Ricci, Davide; William Mills; Jeff Osier-Mixon; Justin Waters
Cc: yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board: April meeting minutes & new member info

On 04/22/2016 01:22 PM, Cobbley, David A wrote:
> I agree that having members commit resources to advance the work is ideal.  I believe the current rules do call for committed engineers and/or contributions.

correct

  However,  issue is appears to be that some members do not actually
follow that commitment, or they tend to count resources/contributions
for deliverables that mostly favor their own organization.
>

(looks around the room and sees everyone looking at me...)

> If we could tackle this issue - holding members accountable for their resource/contribution commitments - that would help our situation immensely.

This can get tricky. Increasing resources/contributions might be on the
same scale as increasing the dues for some Members.

- armin

>
> --David C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Ricci, Davide
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 1:02 PM
> To: William Mills <wmills at ti.com>; Jeff Osier-Mixon <jefro at jefro.net>; Justin Waters <justin.waters at timesys.com>
> Cc: yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board: April meeting minutes & new member info
>
> Two options maybe? :
>
> - get enough $ to fund the work
> - get enough help (read "committed people / engineers / marketeers ") from the participating organizations to do the work
>
> Linaro has a similar model in place - membership fee + engineers.
>
> Conf call is definitely better.
>
> D
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org [yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org] on behalf of William Mills [wmills at ti.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:49 PM
> To: Jeff Osier-Mixon; Justin Waters
> Cc: yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board: April meeting minutes & new member info
>
>>>> I am doing my best to influence changes within  MontaVista.
>>>>
>>>> - armin
>
> No worries Armin.  I know the members in the project are working with good intent.  I think we just need to reset management expectations on the true cost of this project.  In my own company it is a heck of a lot easier to get $5K to travel to meetings in EU or Asia but try to allocate $5K for an external software project is a major pitch.
>
> On 04/22/2016 02:16 PM, Jeff Osier-Mixon wrote:
>> This is an excellent question. The answer right now is no, we don't -
>> we have so far left it up to individual organizations to decide the
>> level at which they want to participate. This is different from LF's
>> process of deciding solely based on organization size because we
>> didn't want to prevent anyone from joining if, as has happened, YP is
>> being used by a team of 30 people in a company of 10,000. Should we
>> base their scale on the group or the company, knowing we won't get
>> them as members in the latter case?
>
> Even in the LF model, the org chooses the level.  However the dues at [some?] levels are based on company size.
>
> Jeffro: can you get the sliding scale LF uses for Silver membership?
> If need be share this info on the yocto-ab-private list.
>
>> So we have left that decision to
>> the member themselves. As a result we have several very large
>> companies at Silver level, but I believe they are companies we would
>> not have at all otherwise. It might make sense at this point, 5 1/2
>> years in, to create a table outlining expectations of membership
>> level, participation, etc.
>>
>> I would suggest that if the project directly benefits the bottom line,
>> an organization owes it to itself to participate and help guide the
>> direction of the project. Thus, any company that relies on YP as an
>> upstream or as a resource to support their own products (e.g. if they
>> host a BSP layer) should be expected to join at the highest level they
>> can reasonably afford, because YP is critical to their business. That
>> said, each org has its own definition of what it can afford. In the
>> guidelines for YP Participant status, we outlined large vs. small as
>> being around 80 employees, on the theory that any company larger than
>> that would have the resources to at least join as Silver.
>>
>
> If the size criteria gets too sticky, we also talked about adding a Bronze level or AB votes for reduced dues to companies we explicitly want in the project.
>
> With 3 (Platinum, Gold, Silver) or 4 (+Bronze) levels we definitely need to make the membership level more prominent on the website.  I understand this has some down sides but at the end of the day this is the biggest "get" from a higher level; recognition that you are a major supporter to YP.
>
>> It is also worth noting that every change we make in our guidelines
>> ripples through the pipeline of organizations interested in joining.
>>
>> It might be most expedient for someone or a small sub-group to come up
>> with a strawman proposal for us to alter. Any volunteers?
>>
>
> I am happy to work in this group.  I would prefer to do it on a conf call.  We have tried to the e-mail list route a couple times and I am not convinced we will close this way.
>
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Justin Waters
>> <justin.waters at timesys.com> wrote:
>>> Do we have clear guidelines as to who we would consider good
>>> candidates for each membership level? As in, size of company,
>>> dependence on Yocto for their products, etc?
>>>
>>> Having a document or table like this would give us a couple of
>>> things: 1) Something to take to upper management to make the case
>>> that a higher level of participation is warranted, and b) that the
>>> expectations are consistent and fair to everyone involved.
>>>
>>> I think we have a good enough sample size of members to pull some
>>> numbers together. And it would help clarify who we consider "large"
>>> and who we consider "small".
>>>
>>> -Justin
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:35 PM, akuster <akuster at mvista.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04/19/2016 07:42 AM, William Mills wrote:
>>>>> I have no issue giving small companies a price break in some way
>>>>> (Bronze or sliding silver).
>>>>> However, expecting Gold members to take up all the slack and larger
>>>>> SIlver members pay nothing extra is not acceptable to TI.
>>>>
>>>> As I am with one of those larger Silver members that pay nothing
>>>> extra, I understand your frustration and share your frustration.
>>>>
>>>> I am doing my best to influence changes within  MontaVista.
>>>>
>>>> - armin
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 04/18/2016 01:39 PM, Jeff Osier-Mixon wrote:
>>>>>> It is worth mentioning that there are other possibilities as well.
>>>>>> Here are some ideas:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Bronze level at a lower price point
>>>>>> - Sliding scale for Silver based on company size, say 5k - 20k
>>>>>> - Dues increase only for Gold, not for Silver
>>>>>> - Dues increase to 60k for Gold, 0 for Silver
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are pros and cons for each of these. We need to keep in mind
>>>>>> that the goal is to keep the project fully funded, to keep the
>>>>>> documentation production at its normal rate, and to keep member
>>>>>> value high.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Erway, Tracey M
>>>>>> <tracey.m.erway at intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Jefro corrected me:  "Dues are billed annually in January, so we
>>>>>>> can't raise them in 2016. We asked people to donate spare cash, as Renesas did."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Erway,
>>>>>>> Tracey M
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:55 AM
>>>>>>> To: Jeff Osier-Mixon; yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board: April meeting minutes
>>>>>>> & new member info
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The purpose of upping the dues was to cover this year's
>>>>>>> shortfall.  We need a solution that raises funds in the immediate
>>>>>>> timeframe, so future guidelines will not address the issue.
>>>>>>> /t
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org
>>>>>>> [mailto:yocto-ab-bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Jeff
>>>>>>> Osier-Mixon
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:50 AM
>>>>>>> To: yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [yocto-ab] YP Advisory Board: April meeting minutes
>>>>>>> & new member info
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi again - I'm following up on the potential dues increase in
>>>>>>> 2017. I had a conversation with Otavio this morning, and he
>>>>>>> suggested that some of the Silver members might have a great deal
>>>>>>> of difficulty with a 50% increase in dues, especially as they are
>>>>>>> all currently paying for LF corporate membership as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I propose that we consider keeping Silver at 10k annually, but
>>>>>>> placing stronger guidelines on which organizations can join as Silver.
>>>>>>> Alternatively, we could reopen the discussion about Bronze level.
>>>>>>> I think it is paramount to the community to have an affordable
>>>>>>> participation level that still has access to YP Compatible status.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts welcome
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Jeff Osier-Mixon
>>>>>>> <jefro at jefro.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Note to new members - I have tried to add information in these
>>>>>>>> minutes to help explain the roles of each of the groups within
>>>>>>>> the project, so these minutes are quite long but hopefully
>>>>>>>> informative.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yocto Project Advisory Board
>>>>>>>> Wed April 6, 2016
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Attendees:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tracey Erway, Intel
>>>>>>>> Cyril Chemparathy, Xilinx
>>>>>>>> Justin Waters, Timesys
>>>>>>>> Bill Mills, TI
>>>>>>>> Chris Hallinan, Mentor Graphics
>>>>>>>> Armin Kuster, MontaVista
>>>>>>>> Munakata-san, Renesas
>>>>>>>> Stu Grossman. Juniper
>>>>>>>> Tyler Baker, Linaro
>>>>>>>> Philip Balister, OpenEmbedded
>>>>>>>> Jeff Osier-Mixon, YP/Intel
>>>>>>>> Lieu Ta, Wind River
>>>>>>>> Richard Purdie, YP
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I missed your name on the attendee list, please let me know.
>>>>>>>> We did have a quorum and were able to vote in the meeting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> New Members & Special Thanks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The project welcomed new members Linaro and Xilinx, as well as
>>>>>>>> returning member Timesys. Thanks for being part of the Yocto Project!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Special thanks to Renesas, who donated cash in Q1 to help pay
>>>>>>>> for documentation and Developer Day, and to Intel, who also
>>>>>>>> donated cash in Q1 to help pay for documentation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Budget
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lieu Ta from Wind River is responsible for Finance within the
>>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The project has an annual budget of approximately US$400k. With
>>>>>>>> this budget, we pay for the following categories of expenses,
>>>>>>>> with 2015 percentages shown:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Infrastructure (66%): physical and network infrastructure,
>>>>>>>> including build systems and servers, and systems administrator.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Operations (15%): basic project operations, including legal as
>>>>>>>> well as 15% overhead to LF
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Advocacy (13%): activities often provided by marketing
>>>>>>>> organizations, including collateral, public relations, outbound
>>>>>>>> communications, and event coverage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Documentation (5%): we pay a contract technical writer to
>>>>>>>> create documentation for the project. (This expense is expected
>>>>>>>> to grow significantly in 2016)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Community (1%): this budget covers gaps, including meeting
>>>>>>>> expenses, donations to related organizations like OpenEmbedded,
>>>>>>>> paid internships such as Outreachy, and occasionally travel for
>>>>>>>> specific vital personnel to important gatherings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lieu presented the results of the 2015 budget. Income and
>>>>>>>> expenses were very nearly on par, with a small shortfall due to
>>>>>>>> documentation expenses. The 2015 figures are currently posted on the wiki at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Project_Finances
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We discussed the ongoing 2016 budget, which is expecting some
>>>>>>>> notable shortfalls primarily due to the project taking on the
>>>>>>>> cost of documentation, expected to cost $120k-150k/year. We also
>>>>>>>> discussed the
>>>>>>>> 2017 budget. This discussion is presented later in these minutes
>>>>>>>> as part of the discussion about membership and business development.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Advocacy & Events
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tracey Erway from Intel leads the Advocacy effort for YP, with
>>>>>>>> help from the Advocacy team.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tracey presented a summary of advocacy activities, including
>>>>>>>> events, giveaways, Developer Day training sessions, and the
>>>>>>>> backgrounder that was finished last year. She also mentioned
>>>>>>>> that YP currently has 80% of the commercial embedded linux OS
>>>>>>>> market share, which is great news indeed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In 2015 we attended and sponsored ELC and ELCE, and also added
>>>>>>>> SCaLE in early 2016 along with a free-to-attend introductory
>>>>>>>> training session, or "mini-DevDay" event, with training provided
>>>>>>>> by LF Training.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Developer Day US 2015 in San Jose was actually profitable due to
>>>>>>>> the efforts of Mentor Graphics and the donation of their
>>>>>>>> facility. Both DevDays were greatly enhanced by the donation and
>>>>>>>> subsequent giveaway of a great deal of hardware from Intel, TI,
>>>>>>>> and TechNexion, as well as SanDisk. DevDay US 2016 was made
>>>>>>>> possible by a large cash donation from Renesas as well as
>>>>>>>> hardware donations from Linaro, TI, and Intel.
>>>>>>>> All DevDay sessions are driven by the tireless effort of many
>>>>>>>> volunteer speakers, classroom helpers, and organizers to reach
>>>>>>>> 150-200
>>>>>>>> students directly each year, who then take that knowledge back
>>>>>>>> to their companies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andreea completed work on the YP backgrounder, a brochure with
>>>>>>>> two versions that is available in the YP booth at all events.
>>>>>>>> PDF versions have been sent to all member organizations so they
>>>>>>>> can print it and bring it to events that YP does not sponsor.
>>>>>>>> The longer of the two, which contains profiles of each
>>>>>>>> organization that contributed now needs to be updated because of
>>>>>>>> our new members, but the smaller version still works just fine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tracey identified the website as a primary need. It needs to be
>>>>>>>> refreshed with an easier to read front page, a regular blog, and
>>>>>>>> better information flow for new users. Several people have
>>>>>>>> volunteered ideas - at this point what is needed is funding and
>>>>>>>> resources to make it happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Mills cautioned the organization to not be too marketing
>>>>>>>> driven, which we discussed as a group.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jefro congratulated the Advocacy team for getting so much done
>>>>>>>> on such a small budget.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Infrastructure
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Michael Halstead is a systems administrator who started with YP
>>>>>>>> in the very early days as a contractor. He is now an employee at
>>>>>>>> Linux Foundation working solely on YP. His salary as well as all
>>>>>>>> the servers and infrastructure he works on come from this
>>>>>>>> budget.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Michael gave a rundown on our infrastructure, particularly the
>>>>>>>> build machines and autobuilders he manages along with the
>>>>>>>> servers, particularly the git server and all community assets
>>>>>>>> such as the mailing lists, wiki, and bugzilla.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Documentation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scott Rifenbark is the project's technical writer. He sometimes
>>>>>>>> works in conjunction with other resources donated by member
>>>>>>>> organizations, particularly Intel. Scott has been with the
>>>>>>>> project since before its launch in 2010. He previously worked as
>>>>>>>> an Intel employee, but since fall 2015 he has been contracted to the project through LF.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since documentation is one of the primary value adds that the
>>>>>>>> project provides to its members, this is an important resource to hang onto.
>>>>>>>> We have paid for Scott's work to date by donations from member
>>>>>>>> organizations, particularly Intel and Renesas. If documentation
>>>>>>>> is important to you, please consider donating for this budget
>>>>>>>> specifically.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To pay for documentation, the Advisory Board discussed three
>>>>>>>> major funding ideas, which are covered next.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Business Development and Membership
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The project has had between 17 and 20 members for most of its
>>>>>>>> existence, and while the budget has always been one of the
>>>>>>>> smallest among the LF Collaborative Projects, we have provided
>>>>>>>> quite a lot of value to the members and to the general public
>>>>>>>> with what we had. It is noteworthy that the project has been
>>>>>>>> self-sustaining for nearly all of the five years it has existed,
>>>>>>>> and we want to continue that success going forward.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Given the expenses and income the project expects for 2016,
>>>>>>>> particularly the added load of documentation, we discussed at
>>>>>>>> length ways to increase the available funds through business
>>>>>>>> development and membership dues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We settled on five specific actions:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Establish a new membership level: Platinum, with dues of 100k
>>>>>>>> (or more). Each Platinum member gets two votes on the Advisory Board.
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> is effective immediately, and any member organization can switch
>>>>>>>> to Platinum at any time. Each member org is tasked with the
>>>>>>>> action to pitch this membership level to their management
>>>>>>>> structure to see if it is feasible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Propose to raise dues starting in 2017. The current proposal
>>>>>>>> is to move Gold members to 55k per year, an increase of 10k, and
>>>>>>>> Silver members to 15k per year, an increase of 5k. Each member
>>>>>>>> org is tasked with the action to let their organizations know
>>>>>>>> this increase has been proposed and to report back to the group
>>>>>>>> in May.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Become more active and involved as a group in recruiting new
>>>>>>>> member organizations. To that end, several members are
>>>>>>>> interested in exploring the new member pipeline and also in
>>>>>>>> looking to their own network of partners to expand project membership.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - A potential non-voting Bronze level was also discussed, with
>>>>>>>> potential dues of 1k to 5k and various member values and
>>>>>>>> potential restrictions. However, this would provide minimal
>>>>>>>> benefit to the project, so it was decided instead to establish a
>>>>>>>> YP Supporter level to recognize anyone who donates any amount to
>>>>>>>> the project lower than a Silver membership. Jefro will follow up
>>>>>>>> on how this recognition is to be done, including a provisional
>>>>>>>> YP Supporter badge similar to YP Participant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - We also discussed establishing clearer guidelines on member
>>>>>>>> value, especially in terms of access to the primary YP git
>>>>>>>> server at git.yoctoproject.org. The team has an action to review
>>>>>>>> the current tree of layers available on the git server so that
>>>>>>>> more valuable layers will be more prominent. It was noted that
>>>>>>>> some hosted hardware layers are not represented by the companies
>>>>>>>> who produce the hardware, so the team agreed to approach those
>>>>>>>> companies for silver membership, and potentially to formalize
>>>>>>>> autobuilder access and QA support as member benefits. RP has the
>>>>>>>> lead responsibility for these things, with Jefro planning to
>>>>>>>> help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Along those same lines, the BSP layer definition was planned to
>>>>>>>> be discussed at the OpenEmbedded meeting later in the week. RP
>>>>>>>> agreed to discuss BSPs in more detail at th enext Advisory Board
>>>>>>>> meeting in May.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tracey offered to write up some of the data she has access to in
>>>>>>>> terms of market share so that members can use it to promote YP
>>>>>>>> inside their own organizations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Members can always donate funds, as Renesas and Intel have
>>>>>>>> recently, and it is good to remember that each organization has
>>>>>>>> a responsibility to donate human resources to the project, as
>>>>>>>> mentioned in the membership agreement. Most member organizations
>>>>>>>> have at least one person working full-time on YP issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One more note about membership. Please be aware that while the
>>>>>>>> project currently places no concrete restrictions on membership
>>>>>>>> level, there is an expectation that a member org's chosen level
>>>>>>>> will correspond to some degree with organization size, but
>>>>>>>> mostly with the real value it gets from the project. Members
>>>>>>>> rely on YP as an upstream for their own software products, as an
>>>>>>>> enabling tool for their hardware BSPs, or as a primary tool for
>>>>>>>> creating operating systems for commercial embedded products.
>>>>>>>> Given the extremely high market penetration the project has
>>>>>>>> established in only five years, project dues are very
>>>>>>>> inexpensive compared to the value received. These are vital
>>>>>>>> business functions, so it makes sense to support the project as
>>>>>>>> fully as your organization can.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _____________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Community
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Community management is a gap-filling role within the
>>>>>>>> organization, with a charter to listen to each of the
>>>>>>>> communities within the project
>>>>>>>> - users, maintainers, technical leaders, maintainers - and to
>>>>>>>> monitor and enable their efforts. Jeff "Jefro" Osier-Mixon is
>>>>>>>> the community manager, and he also serves as business liaison to
>>>>>>>> the technical writer, project liaison to Michael Halstead, and
>>>>>>>> contributor to Advocacy and other efforts within the organization.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As we were short on time, Jefro briefly discussed the vibrant
>>>>>>>> and very active YP community, which has experienced a
>>>>>>>> rock-steady growth since the project's inception, having grown
>>>>>>>> out of the already active OpenEmbedded community. The project
>>>>>>>> has 35-50 distinct committers each month, and a very active
>>>>>>>> codebase. (More technical stats at
>>>>>>>> https://www.openhub.net/p/YoctoProject) The website experiences
>>>>>>>> on the order of 2.8M pageviews annually. The mailing lists are
>>>>>>>> home to about
>>>>>>>> 2500 very active developers, and we have active presence on
>>>>>>>> several social media sites.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some statistics are available, and more metrics are being
>>>>>>>> developed this year, but we discussed briefly that they are not
>>>>>>>> entirely meaningful other than to establish and track trends. As
>>>>>>>> project godfather Dave Stewart said once, it isn't the raw
>>>>>>>> number of participants that matters, it's that we reach the
>>>>>>>> right participants, those who benefit from the project and those
>>>>>>>> who can do good for the project in return. With 80% market share
>>>>>>>> and many thousands of individual users worldwide, I think we are
>>>>>>>> currently successful with that, and it will continue to be our core value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please feel free to contact me directly or comment on this
>>>>>>>> thread to the Advisory Board, and don't hesitate to reach out to
>>>>>>>> me personally if anything is unclear or if you have any questions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for participating!
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jeff Osier-Mixon
>>>>>>>> Open Source Community Architect, Intel Corporation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jeff Osier-Mixon
>>>>>>> Open Source Community Architect, Intel Corporation
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> yocto-ab mailing list
>>>>>>> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> yocto-ab mailing list
>>>>>>> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> yocto-ab mailing list
>>>> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
>>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Justin Waters
>>> Director of Engineering
>>> Timesys Corporation
>>
>>
>>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto-ab mailing list
> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto-ab mailing list
> yocto-ab at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto-ab
>