--On Friday, August 29, 2008 03:47:11 PM -0400 Steven Jenkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
Would you be satisfied with language allowing the registrars to eject
one of their own? If not, what else do you think is necessary?
Yes.
OK, then. Now let's see if we can agree on some text. I'll propose the
following as a replacement for the next-to-last paragraph of 2.3.2:
This combination of roles makes it difficult for a single
individual to serve as registrar. Instead, it is proposed to
expand the role of registrar to include a number of individuals
from the community. This group would initially be composed as
described in section 3.
Once established, the registrars set their own procedures for
adding new registrars, removing registrars, and determining the
size of the group. In the event there are no registrars, a new
group will be formed consisting of one representative from each
active AFS implementation and one representative chosen by the
chairs.
I would also add the following sentence to the last paragraph of 2.3.2:
The registrars must make the current set of registries available to
the community, including versions in the preferred source form.
These changes have several effects...
- Explicitly empower the registrars to establish a removal mechanism.
- Explicitly empower the registrars to set the size of the group.
- Remove mention of the "current registrar", which is meaningful only
during initial bootstrapping.
- Remove ex officio membership of chairs in the registrar pool.
- Provide a way to recover from all of the registrars disappearing.
- Insure source is available if someone else has to take over.
Comments?
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
