The community needs to have representation at the board...

That the community has no longer access to be elected to the board seat is more than a controversy, since that those seats gave the community both a voice and a vote at the board of the Linux Foundation.

The fact that the Linux kernel remains free, while it's good, it's not at the center of this controversy. Since the community is such an important part of the Linux kernel development, it's important that the community has a place at the board. Just being able to have a say on the development side is not enough, since the a good part of the kernel development goes through the community.

Both the community and the enterprises deserve seats at the board not only because of the development they represent, but to have a balance and to represent all interests vested on the development of Linux.

At the end, it's about all the parties that work on the Linux kernel need to be represented at the board. It's for the best interest of the Linux Foundation at large, and for the end user in particular. Since the interests of the community and enterprises are not always the same, having both at the board is the best way to mediate agreements in the best way possible.

It has to do more with representation, than with the fact that the Linux kernel remaining free. Future Linux kernel representations needs that the community to have access to a free kernel development, as well to seats at the board.

The interests of the community are just as important as those of the enterprises, so the community needs to be represented at the board on a proportional manner. If not, the Linux Foundation faces a loss to lose a lot of the legitimacy that it has worked to have among the community.

The community or the enterprises need to have control, but there is a need to have a balance.

Technology and what it means to be human...

One of the biggest fears people have about technology, is that it can have a dehumanizing effect on people. In a way, it can on some individuals. Yet, in most cases it doesn't dehumanizes people. Most of the time it just compliments or, in some cases, enhances what it means to be human.

It's important to remember that what means to be human has changed over time, as we gain a better understanding of the world around us and the technologies that come with that understanding.

This change has seen an exponential growth in the last century, specially in the last decade or so. With so many changes that have occurred, it's easy to see why the changes on people scare so many of us since is to hard to keep up with all the changes happening around us.

The full effects of this changes won't be really be fully appreciated, or understood, for quite some time. They have been so deep, and rapid, that they'll most of their effects haven't been seen yet.

Should we embrace all new technology that comes our way? No, but we shouldn't dismiss outright either. It's a balancing act, as hard as it might be to choose from time to time. Sometimes, it might not readily obvious the what's the right choice will be.

At the end, technology doesn't gives or takes away humanity in itself since what it means to be human changes as times goes on. What it can do, is giving individuals the chance to be more or less human. In a way, it's easier to blame technology than the people who uses it for the choices they make.

It's people who at the end have to act in a humane way, and technology is just a tool which enables people to act more or less humanly towards others. It's people who define what humanity is, and to act accordingly.

Moving around the modern city...

One of the ironies of modern life resides on the transportation on cities. There is this culture that puts the car above all other mode of other mode of transportation, even though there is a need to find a better way to move people around in out dense modern cities.

For one, the pollution generated by the amount of cars in big cities has a demonstrated negative effect on health. The amount of cars there are in cities, chokes traffic to a stop. Most of the time, during peak hours, most of the streets become a virtual parking lot. At times, walking to where you're going can be actually faster than using your car.

Problem with this, is that at times walking isn't really an option because there is no safe way of doing so. And make the problem worse, there is the public transport is not an option because it uses the same overflowed infrastructure or is non-existent.

Even though there are some cities that have a good public transportation system, most cities fall short because they stubbornly see the car as the only option. I don't say that cars is the root of all evils of mobility in cities, but there is a real need to make it an option for urban mobility rather than the primary mode transportation.

Most cities with dense population need to give priority to mass transit, and other modes of transportation like bicycles and walking. Cars need to be replaced as the primary mode of transportation in densely populated urban centers, where there are more people need to move around it.

I find it odd that telecommunications seem to get all the attention now, and the way people move around the cities they live in is almost an after thought. We can't live on a virtual world 24/7, we also need to live on the real wold. That means, that we need to move around just as easily in it to be able to live a full life.

And in big cities, it means that having a quality mass transit option is a necessity for people. Most cities fall short, by giving that option or because they don't modernize the mass transit they have to meet the current needs of the people. Seems that governments, mostly at the local level, seem to be always reacting to what the people needs, instead of plan ahead and acting accordingly.

If cities don't plan ahead, and act upon those plans on a timely manner, they'll never meet the needs of people today. They always lag behind, with a cost to the quality of life of those who live on those cities.

Cities need to stop giving preference to cars, and start looking at it as just another way to move the city. Or at least, make it equal to mass transit on long distances and walking, or bicycles, or the short distances. This is just one of the factors we need to improve the quality of life in cities.