[AFS3-std] AFS Standardization Proposal

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

--On Thursday, July 24, 2008 08:55:54 PM +0100 Simon Wilkinson 
<simon@sxw.org.uk> wrote:

>> Under my original proposal, you're not, because this is a meta-
>> discussion, not a technical one.
>
> And therein lies the problem, as far as I can see. Someone has to
> determine what counts as a 'contribution'. That ends up with that person
> wielding a lot of power.

Yes.  That's mitigated somewhat by the requirement to post the list of 
eligible voters prior to starting the process, so people have a chance to 
object.


> Given the chairs don't have anyone above them
> (remember, we're by design not part of the OpenAFS Foundation for
> management purposes), it's hard to see where an appeal against abuse that
> power would go

I think I was proposing that process appeals (but not technical ones) go to 
the foundation board, if it is willing to take on that role.  I think that 
strikes an acceptable balance between independence and not having a rogue 
chair or vote-taker be able to sieze power.


> Personally,
> I'd rather minimise as far as possible subjectivity in the voting
> procedure.

Fair enough.



> There is, however, one flaw with the 'list member for x weeks'
> eligibility - when we do recalls, the required number of votes is based
> on the total list membership. We need to ensure that broken email
> addresses are regularly culled from the list.

Yes.  Fortunately, mailman can do that automatically.

-- Jeff