[AFS3-std] (no subject)

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

--On Tuesday, July 15, 2008 05:57:27 PM +0100 Simon Wilkinson 
<simon@sxw.org.uk> wrote:

> A recurring issue that came to a head at this years AFS Best Practices
> Workshop is how we manage the standardisation of extensions to the
> protocol.
>
> The attached document outlines a possible, formal, standardisation
> process for AFS extensions. None of it is set in stone, and your comments
> are greatly appreciated. Comments can be made either directly to me, or
> on the afs3-standardization@openafs.org list, to which replies are
> directed.
>
> If you're interested in the future development of AFS, please take the
> time to review and comment upon the document.

I had a chance to review this document earlier this week, and it looks like 
a good starting point.  Hopefully we can get some discussion going here and 
reach a consensus.  I had a number of comments, most of which were minor 
and which I sent to Simon directly (at least some of these have already 
been reflected in the version just posted).  However, a couple of my 
comments were on points which we think are good areas for discussion.


* Section 2.2.2:
  With regard to eligibility, I think rather than "subscribed as of X",
  it might be better to do something involving both actual participation
  and a period of time.  For example, a requirement that someone have
  made a substantive post sometime in the previous 18 months, where
  "substantive" means something which is part of an on-topic technical
  discussion (including just expressing support for a proposal, but not
  organizational issues), and is determined by the vote-taker subject to
  appeal.

  The vote-taker should, around the same time nominations start, post
  a list of the eligible voters.



* Section 2.5
  I don't see any reason why these need to be hosted by the foundation
  rather than by grand.central.org, which is the existing home of the
  registrar function and of not only afs3-standardization but all of the
  openafs.org mailing lists.  I expect that eventually the OpenAFS lists
  may migrate to a new home, but there hasn't been much motion in that
  direction yet.  However, even if that happens, I don't see any reason
  to move the afs3-standardization list, which is _not_ specific to
  OpenAFS.

  Similarly, I'm perfectly happy to continue to provide a repository for
  the registries at grand.central.org, which is the current home of the
  registrar function.


-- Jeff