[AFS3-std] AFS Standardization Proposal
Jeffrey Hutzelman
jhutz@cmu.edu
Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:58:08 -0400
--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