Here's the thing: I can spend time fixing code, or I can spend time arguing with people about patches to make it work now. I only have so much time. This comes back to the original comment you thought was arrogant.
If I have fewer hours than I need to do everything I'd rather fix things than argue with people about the changes we need to work at all. Your point (I think it was your point) that no one else was doing it is true. No one's volunteering, and I don't have money to hire an arguer;-)
I've been thinking about this.
There are some large organizations out there with serious and longstanding institutional commitments to AFS. A few that come to mind are MIT, Stanford, Michigan, CMU, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (where I work), CERN, Morgan Stanley. I know there are others.
I'm concerned about AFS not running on Linux 2.6. Other organizations may have the concern. Solving this problem will require writing code, but it will also require convincing the Linux kernel developers to incorporate the code. From previous discussion on this list, it seems that may not be easy.
It's too much to ask the OpenAFS developers to also be our user advocates. First of all, they don't have the time. But they also don't represent the user base in any official capacity, and maybe that's what we need to fix.
What do people think about forming an advocacy group? Maybe we'll make more headway with the Linux team if we ask them, as major organizational users of AFS, to help ensure that Linux in particular and open source software in general continues to be responsive to our needs.
I'm sure I could arrange for some support for such an effort at JPL. I don't think it'll require much.
Comments? Suggestions?
Steve
_______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
