[AFS3-std] AFS Standardization Proposal

[Jake Thebault-Spieker]

------=_Part_35676_12359016.1217856408809
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

>
> > Personally, I believe that establishing any kind of competence hurdle is
> > going to be extremely difficult to manage. I'd be interested in proposals
> of
> > exactly how such a hurdle could be defined without introducing a
> significant
> > level of subjectivity to the electoral process. Without a competence
> > definition that avoids the need to make subjective decisions, my personal
> > view is that we can't introduce an eligibility requirement.
>
> An accepted contribution of code or accurate documentation to any
> project implementing the AFS3 protocol including one's own is all I
> can come up with, and it excludes people who are well-qualified to
> speak to matters at hand but happen to be implementing or have
> implemented something else or otherwise don't have time to do
> implementation work. While I'm not sure this is a horrible thing I can
> understand why it would be unpalatable.
>

I see this as trimming down way too much, because I'm certain there are
people who have valid opinions/knowledge on the subject, and like you said
either aren't working on implementation, or simply can't, due to time
constraints,

I tend to be more inclined towards Simon's suggestion, of minimizing
constraints, as it will lead to subjectivity in the election process,
putting the brunt of subjectivity on one or two people.


-- 
Jacob Thebault-Spieker
Cell: (320) 288-6412

------=_Part_35676_12359016.1217856408809
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
&gt; Personally, I believe that establishing any kind of competence hurdle is<br>
&gt; going to be extremely difficult to manage. I&#39;d be interested in proposals of<br>
&gt; exactly how such a hurdle could be defined without introducing a significant<br>
&gt; level of subjectivity to the electoral process. Without a competence<br>
&gt; definition that avoids the need to make subjective decisions, my personal<br>
&gt; view is that we can&#39;t introduce an eligibility requirement.<br>
<br>
</div>An accepted contribution of code or accurate documentation to any<br>
project implementing the AFS3 protocol including one&#39;s own is all I<br>
can come up with, and it excludes people who are well-qualified to<br>
speak to matters at hand but happen to be implementing or have<br>
implemented something else or otherwise don&#39;t have time to do<br>
implementation work. While I&#39;m not sure this is a horrible thing I can<br>
understand why it would be unpalatable.<br><div class="Ih2E3d"></div></blockquote><div><br>I see this as trimming down way too much, because I&#39;m certain there are people who have valid opinions/knowledge on the subject, and like you said either aren&#39;t working on implementation, or simply can&#39;t, due to time constraints,<br>
<br>I tend to be more inclined towards Simon&#39;s suggestion, of minimizing constraints, as it will lead to subjectivity in the election process, putting the brunt of subjectivity on one or two people.<br>&nbsp;</div></div><br>
-- <br>Jacob Thebault-Spieker<br>Cell: (320) 288-6412<br><br>
</div>

------=_Part_35676_12359016.1217856408809--