[AFS3-std] Re: IBM will not re-license OpenAFS .xg files

[Russ Allbery]

Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:

> I think why I don't like your phrasing of this is that to me, it sounds
> like saying "the _only_ way standards work will proceed is if there are
> 25 hours in a day, or more people are brought on to the process" (that
> is, the only way is if more time/resources are obtained).

That's correct.  That's my opinion.  It's a kind of pessimistic opinion,
and I could well be wrong, but you've correctly understood my tone.  :)

> Whereas my opinion is that it is more true to say "standards work will
> proceed if we work on it instead of working on other things A, B, and C"
> (that is, if we reprioritize tasks).

I don't believe that reprioritization of tasks is feasible, since I think
the tasks people are working on instead are predominately either "keep it
running" sorts of tasks, without which standardization is sort of
pointless, or are desperately-needed functionality that can't afford to be
blocked on standardization.  At least, that's the impression I've gotten
from various pieces of significant work over the years that continue to be
run and used as local patches or forked versions of OpenAFS while being
stalled on standardization.

There are certainly a few exceptions, but those exceptions involved an
expenditure of effort to get standardization review that I don't think is
viable as a general model.

> So, from this, what I hear is that the reason standards don't get done
> is that standards aren't as important as OpenAFS implementation tasks A,
> B, and C.

Right.

> Whether or not that is "true" is the opinion of individual developers,
> and is never well-defined or communicated or anything like that.

Well, I think it's the opinion of the people providing funding for the
work, more than the opinion of developers, that's the overriding factor
here, since I'm dubious that we can do meaningful standardization for
something as complex as AFS entirely through volunteer time, but as
mentioned above I suppose I'm feeling pessimistic and that pessimism may
be unwarranted.

> I do not spend 100% of my time on AFS on things that absolutely must be
> done within a certain timeframe, nor do I spend 100% of my time on
> things SNA gets paid to do. At the very least, the remainder of that
> certainly could go into standards work, and right now almost none of it
> does. I cannot be the only person for which that is true.

Okay, well, maybe I'm wrong.  I certainly hope so!

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>