[6186] in SIPB bug reports
Re: sipb-nonmem and prospectives with write bits on install volumes in sipb locker
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (chad brown)
Mon Oct 21 23:47:57 1996
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU>
Cc: bug-sipb@MIT.EDU, sipb-afsreq@MIT.EDU, jmorzins@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 21 Oct 1996 22:27:40 EDT."
<199610220227.WAA16571@tertius.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1996 23:45:13 EDT
From: chad brown <yandros@MIT.EDU>
I had replied directly, but other people seem confused as well, so
I'll generate more mail...
what I did, as Sam knows but somehow forgot to mention, was honor a
request that Sal made. Since Sal and I constitute a majority of the
work done on the new sipb locker (and, some might say, the old), I
felt that this was enough `consensus' for the sipb locker
maintainers. :-)
Sam points out that he wasn't allowed install access to the sipb
locker as a prospective. I was. 'eh. If someone feels like making a
policy decision with the associated 18 page description, then go
ahead.
I do not feel qualified to speak on Jake's suitability for membership,
as I am not familiar with his work for SIPB. This is not a problem,
since I did make a statement about his qualifications by complying
with a request from a fellow maintainer. If Sam objects to my
creation of a nonprefixed group name, then I will respond ``I agree;
it's a temporary name for a temporary filesystem''. If he objects to
my decision to grant `user jmorzins' `AFS write' access to most of the
sipb-new filsystem, then I will respond ``I did no such thing.'' --
which is not a statement of disapproval of Sal's actions; it's merely
an acurate description of the facts.
Finally, I would like to say that if I *did* disapprove of Sal's
decision, then I would have talked to Sal about it, rather than
`formally object'ing to anyone. In my opinion, if more people talked
to people rather than formally objecting, maybe we wouldn't have to
try to rearrange meeting discussions so as to not `scary away'
prospectives. :-)
chad
