--On Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:39:12 PM -0400 Derrick Brashear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given the chairs don't have anyone above them
(remember, we're by design not part of the OpenAFS Foundation for
management purposes), it's hard to see where an appeal against abuse
that power would go
I think I was proposing that process appeals (but not technical ones) go
to the foundation board, if it is willing to take on that role. I think
that strikes an acceptable balance between independence and not having a
rogue chair or vote-taker be able to sieze power.
I can come up with a way to game the process, not foolproof, but if
whoever will serve that role in the foundation can arrange an outside
objector to appeal it certainly has some risk for the legitimacy of the
process.
I suppose I should be specific. Under this proposal, if there is a claim
that the process was not followed correctly, and relief cannot be obtained
from the chairs (or, in the case of elections, the vote-taker), then an
appeal can be made to the foundations board of trustees (_not_ the
technical board). Note that gaming the system in the way you describe
requires taking over a majority of that board, or at least getting them to
agree with you.
The assumption is that the members of that body have been chosen for
integrity and for their ability to oversee the financial, legal, and
business affairs of the foundation, and thus will have the ability to
understand and evaluate such claims and enough distance from the process so
as to be unlikely to have a personal interest. Naturally, it would be
better if we could instead give that responsibility to a group that also is
independent of the foundation or any other AFS vendor, but I don't think
any such group exists that would accept it.
If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
