I was fine with Simons proposal last time around and still find it ok. Love
7 jul 2010 kl. 16:08 skrev Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]>: > IMPORTANT: > This has gotten fairly lengthy, but please read through to the end. This > message contains important information on the future of AFS protocol > standardization work, and a specific request for input from the AFS > community (that is, YOUR input) within the next 2 weeks. > > PLEASE send followups to [email protected] > > > Back in January of 2006, the [email protected] mailing list > was created in order to provide a forum for discussion of the AFS protocols > and particularly to coordinate extensions and changes to those protocols > among the various implementations. The first discussions in that vein > started the following month, with Jeffrey Altman's proposal to define new > GetCapabilities RPC's for each of the various RPC services. Since then, > there have been discussions on a wide variety of proposed extensions, some > small and some much larger in scope. Overall, I consider the mailing list > to have been and continue to be a success. > > Two years ago, at the AFS & Kerberos Best Practices Workshop at NJIT in > Newark, NJ, there was some discussion about the prospect of establishing a > more formal charter and process for the standardization group, and > especially of insuring its independence from any one implementation. After > the workshop, Simon Wilkinson took a stab at writing such a charter, and > sent his proposal to the afs3-standardization mailing list (see Simon's > message to that list, dated 15-Jul-2008). This prompted quite a lot of > discussion and two additional drafts over following couple of months. After > the third draft, there was exactly one additional comment, and there has > been no further discussion since. > > It is my personal belief that there was general agreement within the > community to move forward with Simon's draft as an initial charter for the > standardization group. However, there has been little progress in the last > 21 months. Much of this is my fault -- I kept saying I was going to do > something and then not getting around to it. However, while the document > hasn't been discussed much in the interim, my conversations during that > time with various individuals, in person and online, lead me to believe > that there is _still_ general agreement to proceed with Simon's draft. > > > > So, here's what I'm going to do about it... > > Simon's document calls for a bootstrapping process in which a registrar > group is form of the then-current registrar (myself) plus one > representative from each current implementation (IBM, OpenAFS, kAFS, Arla) > that cares to provide one. The registrars would then serve as vote-takers > in an initial election of two chairs as described in section 2.2.2 of the > draft. > > The initial bootstrapping of the registrars has already mostly taken place. > Thomas Kula has agreed to serve as a registrar representing OpenAFS, and > has held that position officially since the 2009 workshop. Around that > time, I asked IBM, kAFS, and Arla to nominate registrars, but I have yet to > receive a response that resulted in an actual volunteer. If any of those > organizations wants to nominate someone, please contact me. Otherwise, > Thomas and I have already agreed that we will nonetheless increase the size > of the registrar group to at least three and seek out a volunteer to fill > the vacant position. It is my hope that we can accomplish that by the end > of the month. > > The next step would seem to be the bootstrapping of the chairs. However, > we have a recursive-dependency problem here -- before we can use the > election process defined in Simon's document with any confidence, we must > be sure we have consensus among the community to use that document. > However, lacking a chair, there is no formal means of determining consensus. > Chicken, meet Egg. > > Simon's document itself proposes part of the solution to this problem, in > the form of the last paragraph of section 3, which calls on the > newly-formed group to develop, adopt, and publish its own charter. To > complete the solution, the registrars note that the first step (indeed, the > first several steps) in electing new chairs rest on our hands. Thus, we > are taking the following actions: > > > (1) I have asked Simon to submit the latest version of his proposed charter > in the form of an Internet-Draft. That draft is now available at > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00> > > (2) On behalf of the registrars, I am issuing this consensus call. This > is an attempt to elicit comments and to discover whether there is > rough consensus in the AFS community to begin formalizing the protocol > standards process as described in the draft named above. I am asking > everyone to review the proposed charter and send any comments to the > mailing list, [email protected], within the next 2 > weeks. > > (3) On or shortly after Wednesday, July 21, 2010, the registrars will > examine the comments received and make a determination as to whether > we believe such a consensus exists. Depending on the state affairs, > we may choose to wait a while longer for discussion to die down before > making a determination. In other words, this is not a hard deadline; > it is only the earliest date on which we will make any decision. > > If at this point the registrars believe that there is not a rough consensus > to adopt Simon's draft charter and that no such consensus is forthcoming, > we will simply stop. Things will continue as they are today, with no > formal process, unless or until someone tries again. > > However, if the registrars believe that a rough consensus _does_ exist, we > will more or less immediately begin the election process as described in > section 2.2.2, with the full set of registrars (at least Thomas and myself, > and preferably at least one other) serving as vote-takers. Our goal will > be to follow the timeline set out in that document. However, this is > incumbent on the community reaching a consensus in time to start the > election process no later than early August. If a consensus emerges, but > more slowly, then we will adjust the timeline accordingly. > > > Here's the important bit again: > > Please take the time to review draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardization-00.txt. > Send your questions and comments to <[email protected]>. > Please comment even if it's just to say "I support this" or "I oppose this". > Please send your comments in by Wednesday, July 21, 2010. > > > -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[email protected]> > for the AFS Assigned Numbers Registrars > > > _______________________________________________ > Arla-drinkers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.stacken.kth.se/mailman/listinfo/arla-drinkers _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
