> If we have rules for ourselves, we should follow them. > If we don't need them, we shouldn't have them. > If they're in the way, which they are, they should either be corrected > or abandoned.
IMHO, this is the correction. We clearly did not anticipate one of the vote counters flaking out and not reporting results. I think Doug's call for consensus to accept the results as-is is a correction to deal with that problem. > The impression I get is that a few people are going to ratify the > election because they want to. Is this also how standards are going to > be determined? If so, I'm certainly not going to waste any time or > effort participating, and that's what I mean by credibility. While I have problems with the acceptance of modifications to code without formal specs or getting the details of the protocol pinned down as a baseline (as-is and future), I think in this case we are actually following the rules in that we are attempting to govern by consensus. I would really like to see this stuff done and moving. I'm willing to pay for that if necessary, but the key point is to see this standardization process established and professionally run. Tom's point about the backlog is a given. The authority to act on behalf of the group needs to be formally established (especially given Doug/Hartmut's employers) to give them some protection and justification for why they're spending time on this. This is how we do it, and the conclusion of this entire bit of political kabuki is long overdue. LONG over due. -- db _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
