[OpenAFS] Funding the formation of an OpenAFS Foundation

[Troy Benjegerdes]

Jeffrey,

I do appreciate all the effort you and the Elders have put into OpenAFS
over the past 10 years at least. That effort, and the release as open
source is why I switched to AFS to store my tax records, email, source
code, and made an attempt to store pretty much everything I've done 
electronically that I wish to have for long-term archival.

> While I appreciate your frustration and motivation, I do not appreciate
> your attitude.  Nor do I understand what it is that you believe that you
> could do that others have not done in the past or are not continuing to
> do to this day?

What I'm attempting to do, with unknown levels of success, is call out 
what I see to be some rather self-defeating habits this community has 
gotten into.

One of those particularly bad habits seems to be having Your-File-System
having a financial interest in the direction of OpenAFS, AND also acting
as the legal and financial backstop. It leaves you frustrated because
you've dumping money into it, and regardless of your actuall motives, 
it creats the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest.

I think you, and the rest of us would all be happier if you walked away
from legal and financial backing, and either let the community take 
care of it, or let it die.

> 
> In addition, the OpenAFS Elders and Gatekeepers have respect for the
> wishes of IBM when it comes to OpenAFS because without IBM OpenAFS would
> not be available for continued use.  When IBM's representatives say to
> us that they want to ensure that future releases are backward compatible
> with IBM AFS 3.x, we take that very seriously.  The Elders and
> Gatekeepers respect that IBM owns the trademarks and that IBM gets to
> determine the meaning of "AFS compatible" even if they haven't put it in
> writing.  As a Gatekeeper and former Elder I ask that you respect the
> judgement of the Elders.
> 
> Jeffrey Altman
> 

Thank you.

I'd like to be able to respect IBM's wishes, but all I really have to go
from is what I find in the LICENSE file. I think the Elders have done a 
fine job so far, but IBM is under no obligation to the Elders or any of
us on whether or not they change their wishes on the use of the trademark.

It seems like the only way for me to respect IBM's wishes is to use their
code under the IPL, and change the name. 

I respect the judgement and leadership of the elders, but I also have no
obligation (or interest) in following the leadership of an unincorporated
loose association which, as near as I can tell, has not produced any code
to solve the problem I need solved (IPv6 and working rxgk).

I like OpenAFS because it's an open-source project, and gives me the freedom
to ask for vendors to support what I need (which I've done, and asked for
budgetary quotes and implementation timelines), or, if that doesnt suit my
needs, for me to go do it myself. Someone else might very well get it done
before I do, but I have that option, and part of the strength of this 
community is that we're examining some rather painful questions.

I was going to say if you don't like my attitude, then killfile my email 
address, but then I usually get damn good responses from you if it's some
sort of obscure technical detail.