[AFS3-std] Second Draft of Standardisation Document: Registrars

[Steven Jenkins]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote:
> --On Friday, August 29, 2008 03:18:02 PM -0400 Steven Jenkins
> <steven.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Attached is a second draft of my AFS standardisation proposal. I believe
>>> I've updated it to reflect all of the discussions to date.
>>>
>>> Comments, including expressions of support, highly welcome!
>>>
>>
>> While the document is looking good, David's questions raise a concern.
>>  The language around selecting the registrars says nothing about their
>> terms ending or the number of registrars overall.  While the
>> registrars have very little power individually (i.e., the day-to-day
>> is handing out protocol numbers, with the only real power being the
>> ability to help break a tie with the other registrars), there should
>> be appointment terms and recall procedures for the registrar roles as
>> well.
>
> Why, particularly with the rules you've described?  If the registrars are
> self-selecting, then I don't think we need to specify that they do so at
> specific times.  It's also not clear to me that the group needs the power to
> recall individual registrars, given that it doesn't have the power to
> appoint them.
>
> Note that the registrar is not a leadership role; it's a clerical one.  The
> corresponding role in the IETF (IANA) is performed by employees of ICANN,
> who keep their jobs until they resign or are terminated, just like any other
> employee.
>

I understand that it's a clerical role, but in a paid position, there
are rules and procedures for terminating employment.  We need to have
analogous (not necessarily identical) ones here.  With respect to the
terms, once the boostrap has started, terms will be more loose, but
each registrar should be committing to a two year term (life will
interfere, in which case the registrars will be free to find a
replacement mid-term, whose term will be two years starting *then*).

I think it will also help registrars in recruiting new ones: for example:

jhutz: Organized Octavia & Detailed Dan, you've been part of the
community, you understand the role of the standardizations process,
and I see you follow-through on the stuff you'll say that you will do.
 Would you like to be registars and help out in that way?
organized octavia: what am I committing to?
jhutz: two years, of sharing this clerical work
detailed dan: hm.  two years?  no thanks.
organized octavia: and after two years?
jhutz: you can agree to serve another term or not, depending on the
size of the registrar team at the time your term ends.

In my mind, that's a good dialogue to have.

And also if a registrar is simply not doing anything, the registrars
should have the ability to replace that individual: I don't see any
language clearly giving registrars the ability to remove deadwood, but
only language about adding new ones.

-- 
Steven Jenkins
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com/