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

[Kim Kimball]

I hear at least some extremes in this discussion. =20

I hear that "we can't" ... "we must"=20

Perhaps we can evaluate this:  "... or are desperately-needed functionality t=
hat can't afford to be
blocked on standardization. "

What is the desperately needed functionality, and for each such item what is=
 the desperate need?

This begs questions: =20

If OpenAFS could deprioritize some number of functionality related tasks, wo=
uld resources devoted to those tasks really be reallocated to standardizatio=
n? =20

Can OpenAFS currently identify people who would gladly work on standardizati=
on but are currently blocked on functionality tasks?

IOW, is it possible to use Ross' candid observation to start a more pragmati=
c conversation? =20

I admit I haven't read all the posts in detail, and may have missed a more f=
act based discussion and if so I apologize.  And of course I'm not aware of w=
hat everyone is doing, so am delightfully free from subtext.

What do we need to know, factually?  What resources can OpenAFS count on?  D=
oes/Can OpenAFS agree on priorities?  Who's working on what right now?  If t=
asks were reprioritized,  who would actually volunteer to work on standards t=
asks?  Is it possible to list/name tasks/priorities/resources?

To summarize ... It seems from my naive take on this conversation that it is=
 worth some detailed analysis and that the current (explicitly?) agreed prio=
rities are not working.

Kim
________________
dhk@ccre.com
970-215-6359


On Aug 29, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> or are desperately-needed functionality that can't afford to be
> blocked on standardization.