--On Tuesday, July 15, 2008 05:57:27 PM +0100 Simon Wilkinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A recurring issue that came to a head at this years AFS Best Practices
Workshop is how we manage the standardisation of extensions to the
protocol.
The attached document outlines a possible, formal, standardisation
process for AFS extensions. None of it is set in stone, and your comments
are greatly appreciated. Comments can be made either directly to me, or
on the [email protected] list, to which replies are
directed.
If you're interested in the future development of AFS, please take the
time to review and comment upon the document.
I had a chance to review this document earlier this week, and it looks like
a good starting point. Hopefully we can get some discussion going here and
reach a consensus. I had a number of comments, most of which were minor
and which I sent to Simon directly (at least some of these have already
been reflected in the version just posted). However, a couple of my
comments were on points which we think are good areas for discussion.
* Section 2.2.2:
With regard to eligibility, I think rather than "subscribed as of X",
it might be better to do something involving both actual participation
and a period of time. For example, a requirement that someone have
made a substantive post sometime in the previous 18 months, where
"substantive" means something which is part of an on-topic technical
discussion (including just expressing support for a proposal, but not
organizational issues), and is determined by the vote-taker subject to
appeal.
The vote-taker should, around the same time nominations start, post
a list of the eligible voters.
* Section 2.5
I don't see any reason why these need to be hosted by the foundation
rather than by grand.central.org, which is the existing home of the
registrar function and of not only afs3-standardization but all of the
openafs.org mailing lists. I expect that eventually the OpenAFS lists
may migrate to a new home, but there hasn't been much motion in that
direction yet. However, even if that happens, I don't see any reason
to move the afs3-standardization list, which is _not_ specific to
OpenAFS.
Similarly, I'm perfectly happy to continue to provide a repository for
the registries at grand.central.org, which is the current home of the
registrar function.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
