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

[Steven Jenkins]

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote:
> --On Friday, August 29, 2008 03:47:11 PM -0400 Steven Jenkins
> <steven.jenkins@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> Would you be satisfied with language allowing the registrars to eject
>>> one of their own?  If not, what else do you think is necessary?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
> OK, then.  Now let's see if we can agree on some text.  I'll propose the
> following as a replacement for the next-to-last paragraph of 2.3.2:
>
>        This combination of roles makes it difficult for a single
>        individual to serve as registrar.  Instead, it is proposed to
>        expand the role of registrar to include a number of individuals
>        from the community.  This group would initially be composed as
>        described in section 3.
>
>        Once established, the registrars set their own procedures for
>        adding new registrars, removing registrars, and determining the
>        size of the group.  In the event there are no registrars, a new
>        group will be formed consisting of one representative from each
>        active AFS implementation and one representative chosen by the
>        chairs.
>
> I would also add the following sentence to the last paragraph of 2.3.2:
>
>        The registrars must make the current set of registries available to
>        the community, including versions in the preferred source form.
>
> These changes have several effects...
>
> - Explicitly empower the registrars to establish a removal mechanism.
> - Explicitly empower the registrars to set the size of the group.
> - Remove mention of the "current registrar", which is meaningful only
>  during initial bootstrapping.
> - Remove ex officio membership of chairs in the registrar pool.
> - Provide a way to recover from all of the registrars disappearing.
> - Insure source is available if someone else has to take over.
>
> Comments?
>


Looks good to me.

Thanks,
Steven

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