Re: [OpenAFS] Consensus Call - AFS3-Standardization Charter -- nomination/Kim
Kim Kimball <dhk <at> ccre.com>
2010-08-24 20:24:11 GMT
Jeff Altman asked me to respond to your email about nomination for the
Can't find that email, but I do accept the nomination, which I believe
is what Jeff A was after.
On 7/7/10 5:08 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> 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 afs3-standardization <at> openafs.org
> Back in January of 2006, the afs3-standardization <at> openafs.org 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
> 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
> in the form of an Internet-Draft. That draft is now available at
> (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, afs3-standardization <at> openafs.org, within the next 2
> (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
> Send your questions and comments to <afs3-standardization <at> openafs.org>.
> Please comment even if it's just to say "I support this" or "I oppose
> Please send your comments in by Wednesday, July 21, 2010.
> -- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <jhutz+ <at> cmu.edu>
> for the AFS Assigned Numbers Registrars
> OpenAFS-info mailing list
> OpenAFS-info <at> openafs.org