I hear at least some extremes in this discussion. I hear that "we can't" ... "we must"
Perhaps we can evaluate this: "... or are desperately-needed functionality that can't afford to be blocked on standardization. " What is the desperately needed functionality, and for each such item what is the desperate need? This begs questions: If OpenAFS could deprioritize some number of functionality related tasks, would resources devoted to those tasks really be reallocated to standardization? Can OpenAFS currently identify people who would gladly work on standardization but are currently blocked on functionality tasks? IOW, is it possible to use Ross' candid observation to start a more pragmatic conversation? I admit I haven't read all the posts in detail, and may have missed a more fact based discussion and if so I apologize. And of course I'm not aware of what everyone is doing, so am delightfully free from subtext. What do we need to know, factually? What resources can OpenAFS count on? Does/Can OpenAFS agree on priorities? Who's working on what right now? If tasks were reprioritized, who would actually volunteer to work on standards tasks? Is it possible to list/name tasks/priorities/resources? To summarize ... It seems from my naive take on this conversation that it is worth some detailed analysis and that the current (explicitly?) agreed priorities are not working. Kim ________________ [email protected] 970-215-6359 On Aug 29, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote: > or are desperately-needed functionality that can't afford to be > blocked on standardization. _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
