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

[Andrew Deason]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:58:22 -0500
Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> wrote:

> We can't keep going "oh, and another thing". That's one of the main
> reasons nothing gets done round here.

Okay, so the way I'm reading these emails is that apparently some people
are completely not understanding what I'm saying.

I am not saying that the RemoveAuthName and TTL issue needs to be fixed
in that document. I was/am fully aware of the context of the last
objections that were raised. I am saying that the state of that document
was, and even now continues to be unclear. If the "todo" is "create
another document to fix those issues" then fine; that is the answer to
my question earlier. I see nothing decisive in the last thread about
this:
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.afs.standardization/985>

If the document was "done" and is an "AFS standard" as much as we have
one, that needs to be announced, or, like, be on a list somewhere.
_something_

So, from what I am assuming from this email and from Jeff's is that
there are 2 tasks related to that document:

 1. Write a new document correcting the TTL and RemoveAuthName issues,
 or ignore the issues and try to deal with them in implementations. It
 is still not clear which of these is what is intended to be done.

 2. Get the doc on some kind of more 'official' site.

The fact that I have to assume those things and gather them from various
emails... <rant> _this_ is what makes this so aggravating all the time.
This is why there is so little interest, so little movement, so little
progress. This is why, while I believe standards work has some intrinsic
difficulty and tedium, this particular process currently seems
borderline impossible to participate in productively. </rant>

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net