Matt Benjamin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The formulation seems quite problematic to me personally, as I've stated > a number of times in public and private discussion, because as > articulated below, it appears make the community and community > developers secondary to (as yet unnamed, though that's not the concern) > investors. (I actually think that runs counter to the spirit under > which IBM originally released the OpenAFS code, though of course I've > had no discussion with any IBM employee regarding that.)
I don't understand why you think this is a regression from the current situation. Currently, the only large projects that happen at all are the ones that are funded by someone. This system opens the possibility of using contributions more collectively for projects of benefit to the whole community instead of only doing large projects that can be funded entirely by one or two organizations. It therefore also adds oversight so that people can have a say in how that money is being spent. Currently, we have exactly the situation that you say that is problematic, except to an even stronger degree because we have no collective funds to speak of and are essentially entirely dependent on whatever someone with funding implements. What role for the community do you perceive exists now which would become secondary under this model? -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
