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

[Derrick Brashear]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:28:46 -0700
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>> There is considerably more that needs to happen with AFS than there
>> are currently time and resources available to do it.  Standardization
>> is one of those things.  There are many.  The primary reason why any
>> specific thing does not get done in AFS, whether that be major new
>> functionality work or protocol specification work, is "not enough
>> time/resources."
>
> I don't see how this could possibly be true, regardless of the little
> details of actual AFS development. "Not enough time" is a reason why we
> don't get _everything_ done, but as to why any one particular "task X"
> doesn't get done, the reason is that it is prioritized lower than
> everything else. The only way that "Not enough time" would be the reason
> for task X not getting completed is if task X could not be done even if
> myself, Derrick, Simon, et al were working on nothing but task X full
> time. There are no tasks where that is true, that I am aware of.
>
> 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). 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).

The problem is actually that there is no "we", we are but a loose
confederation of folks.

> 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.

How about "as interesting to the pool of people currently working on things"?

--

Derrick