>To explicitly address Ken's rather piquant "suggestion", the point IMHO >is NOT to make this process depend on individuals.
Sigh. I know that, and I was mostly kidding. But let me speak to the IETF process, since you brought that up (I don't think IEEE is necessarily that close to the way OpenAFS runs or should be run, so let's not go there). IMO, the IETF process kind of grew by necessity as the IETF itself grew. It went from a relatively informal and small group of people who all knew each other to a giant group of people who didn't know each other nearly as well. Because the original process didn't really scale at all, the IETF process had to get a lot more formalized. I would classify that as a necessary evil. But in the AFS world, well, there AREN'T that many people. You could fit all of the major players in my living room (I speak from experience there). Everyone pretty much knows each other. Now of course we should develop new talent, but I don't see a HUGE influx of people arriving to do OpenAFS work. Including new people shouldn't be hard; there's plenty of room for them. I guess my point was that if people WANT to develop a process now to insure fairness, well, I guess I have no problem. I personally would wait until the formal process was necessary before doing all of that work. And I think the TECHNICAL output of any process-derived document would be equal to anything generated by a hypothetical "Steel Cage Match" :-) --Ken _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
