[nfsv4] rough consensus and the read sparse I-D RE: nfsv4.x

[Spencer Shepler <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of [e-mail]
> Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 11:51 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [nfsv4] nfsv4.x
> 
> I believe that going ahead with this has rough working group consensus,
> although the matter has not been formally put to the group in just that form
> (probably because it seemed as if there was no v4.2).  I think it should be put
> to the group and those objecting should have an opportunity to raise their
> objects.
> 
> There have been a number of messages in which v4.x requirements were
> specified in terms of rough WG consensus plus some set of other things.
> This raises confusion as the sets mentioned are not always the same and it
> isn't clear who would doing the judging as to whether those were met.
> I think it would make things a lot simpler if we said the requirement was
> rough WG consensus, period.  Statements that sufficient interest and activity
> are important, or working code is important could then be understood as not
> in addition to WG consensus but simply part of the discussion explaining
> what considerations were most important to the specific individuals raising
> these as important issues for everybody to consider.

Note that determination of rough consensus is the purview of the
working group (co-)chair.  There have been occasions where I have been
asked by the AD for a positive show of support via the WG alias as
a method of ensuring there was support; however, it is up to the co-chairs
to determine the best method of rough consensus for the group, etc.

As for read sparse, it is clear that there is support for the ideas but there
is still work to be done as to the details -- taking the opportunity to
point out that the referenced draft has expired.

Spencer