Simon Wilkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Personally, I believe that establishing any kind of competence hurdle is > going to be extremely difficult to manage. I'd be interested in > proposals of exactly how such a hurdle could be defined without > introducing a significant level of subjectivity to the electoral > process. Without a competence definition that avoids the need to make > subjective decisions, my personal view is that we can't introduce an > eligibility requirement.
I personally lean mildly in this direction as well. > There are two options here - either leaving things as they are at > grand.central.org, or moving them to systems which are hosted by the > OpenAFS foundation, in whatever form that takes. It's very difficult to > judge this at present, without knowing what the foundation can > provide. In my opinion we should remove the language about where these > functions are hosted from the document at present, and discuss further > when the foundation has come into being. Agreed. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
