[OpenAFS] Re: Proto-TAC

[Russ Allbery]

Matt Benjamin <matt@linuxbox.com> writes:

> The formulation seems quite problematic to me personally, as I've stated
> a number of times in public and private discussion, because as
> articulated below, it appears make the community and community
> developers secondary to (as yet unnamed, though that's not the concern)
> investors.  (I actually think that runs counter to the spirit under
> which IBM originally released the OpenAFS code, though of course I've
> had no discussion with any IBM employee regarding that.)

I don't understand why you think this is a regression from the current
situation.  Currently, the only large projects that happen at all are the
ones that are funded by someone.  This system opens the possibility of
using contributions more collectively for projects of benefit to the whole
community instead of only doing large projects that can be funded entirely
by one or two organizations.  It therefore also adds oversight so that
people can have a say in how that money is being spent.

Currently, we have exactly the situation that you say that is problematic,
except to an even stronger degree because we have no collective funds to
speak of and are essentially entirely dependent on whatever someone with
funding implements.

What role for the community do you perceive exists now which would become
secondary under this model?

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