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

[Kim Kimball]

I expect Andrew's response will differ little from others. =20

The blessing and curse of open source work lies in the lack of budgets and a=
uthorities.

Even if OpenAFS could constrain development/standards/miscellaneous effort i=
t doesn't appear to be practical.  In a paid organization constraining a giv=
en effort can be decided in favor of reallocating the freed resources, drive=
n by mandate and the golden rule (the 'who has the gold makes the rules' var=
iant.). In a purely volunteer arena, constraining an activity in favor of an=
other may simply lose resources instead of accomplishing a desired reallocat=
ion.

I'm not sure how open source organizations function in this regard.  Do task=
s need sponsors?  Is there any authority to say 'we will do these things, an=
d not these others?'. Is effort only constrained by what people are willing t=
o do/submit?

The idea of working on one standards document at a time is interesting.  Tak=
ing it as an example,  it seems that the probability of its success lies in a=
greement among confederates. =20

Late to the party I'm sure, but the idea of allocating resources is quite di=
fferent in all-volunteer organizations. =20

I have of late wondered about the future of AFS, and wished for a corporate o=
wner so direction and resource allocation could be focused,  but have mostly=
 lamented the lack of marketing.  I watch organizations make significant inv=
estment in technologies that are inferior -- from companies that have sales a=
nd marketing budgets.


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


On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:48:17 -0600
> Kim Kimball <dhk@ccre.com> wrote:
>=20
>> I hear that "we can't" ... "we must"=20
>>=20
>> Perhaps we can evaluate this:  "... or are desperately-needed
>> functionality that can't afford to be blocked on standardization. "
>>=20
>> What is the desperately needed functionality, and for each such item
>> what is the desperate need?
>=20
> "Desparately needed" is defined extremely differently according to
> different organizations, and can be conflicting. It is difficult for me
> to even begin to answer that question for myself, let alone arrive at
> some agreement between everyone.
>=20
>> If OpenAFS could deprioritize some number of functionality related
>> tasks, would resources devoted to those tasks really be reallocated to
>> standardization? =20
>>=20
>> Can OpenAFS currently identify people who would gladly work on
>> standardization but are currently blocked on functionality tasks?
>=20
> These are good questions. I have another one. Should the standards group
> try to prioritize and limit the scope of existing standards work? In
> thinking about this, I wondered about the possibility of trying to get
> everyone to work on _one_ document until some consensus point is
> reached, and only then are new documents even proposed. Normally I would
> think that doing something like that is prohibitively slow, but I find
> it hard to believe that anyone involved in the standards process right
> now would be significantly slowed down by that.
>=20
> I mean, given the low level of activity, we are spread pretty darn thin.
>=20
>> What do we need to know, factually?  What resources can OpenAFS count
>> on?  Does/Can OpenAFS agree on priorities?  Who's working on what
>> right now?  If tasks were reprioritized,  who would actually volunteer
>> to work on standards tasks?  Is it possible to list/name
>> tasks/priorities/resources?
>=20
> If you're talking about OpenAFS development, it's not nearly coordinated
> enough at the moment to answer those questions (not that it needs to be;
> I don't think large open source projects generally are). If you restrict
> this to standards-related work, then maybe that is feasible.
>=20
> --=20
> Andrew Deason
> adeason@sinenomine.net
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> AFS3-standardization mailing list
> AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
> http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization