On 1 March 2013 16:26, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:13 AM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 1 March 2013 13:29, Rob Weir <rabas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mar 1, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> > >> > janI wrote: > >> >> I am (as usual) confused > >> > > >> > And, as usual, it is not your fault! > >> > > >> >> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Languages > >> >> This page contains among others a list of all languages, and who > works > >> on > >> >> them. > >> >> I thought this page was replaced by the one rob created sometime ago > in > >> >> cwiki, but at least one user (khirano) cares about the content. > >> > > >> > The two pages should be consolidated somehow. But the Mwiki page you > >> edited seems cut, it's better to rely on an older version: > >> > http://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Languages&oldid=201812 > >> > for this discussion. > >> > > >> >> Now my question, why did we make a cwiki page if this page is still > >> active, > >> >> and if not how are they interconnected (giving users a chance to find > >> >> updated information). > >> > > >> > The new page was probably created to reflect activity at Apache, and > >> when Mwiki was under maintenance. But search engines will inevitably > lead > >> people to Mwiki, so it makes sense to merge the two, unless Rob had > >> different reasons for creating the Cwiki page. > >> > > >> > In general, when we ask new volunteers to sign up for a wiki, it > should > >> be Mwiki if the current orientation is to rely more on Mwiki. > >> > > >> > >> Actually, I'm not very comfortable relying on MWiki. We've already had > >> two near-death experiences with it yet we're still in the exact same > >> situation: we're using complicated software with no official support > >> from Infra and reliance on a single volunteer sys admin. This is > >> asking for trouble. If we really want to rely on something we should > >> mot be in this situation. We need a plan for increasing the base of > >> support, either within the project, or by getting Infra to officially > >> support MWiki. > >> > > > > Now you for sure make me even more confused....first I have to correct a > > number of factual errors, but I also need to understand why you have made > > such a radical change over the last month. > > > > "no official supportfrom Infra and reliance on a single volunteer sys > > admino official support" > > We are 3 volunteers from AOO with sysadmin rights on ooo-wiki, in > addition > > to that we get help from Infra, in person: gmcdonald (who manage the > vms) > > and rjung (who helps maintain httpd). So at VM level we have a relatively > > good coverage, compared to many other Vms. > > > > We are also quite a number of sysop who has nearly all possible rights in > > mwiki, something which you might find more restricted in cwiki. > > > > Unless I have missed the announcement, MWiki is not supported by > Apache Infra. It is in the same boat as phpBB for the forums. It > does not have the same level of Infra support as, CWiki or MoinMoin, > or the mailing lists, or Subversion or Bugzilla, for example. > > Let me give you a hypothetical: You are on vacation and there is a > critical security flaw announced in MWiki and a new patch is > announced. You are not reachable. > It is a very good question. We had a problem in httpd, and thanks to rjung from Infra it was solved fast and efficiently.
And let us simply not hope, that all 3 who have access from AOO are on vacation at the same time, together with gmcdonald (who earlier did a lot of work on the vm and still use time on the vm). Does Apache Infra: > > 1) Shut down the wiki to protect our users? > 2) Automatically install a patch and send us a note, like they do when > supported applications need to be updated? > > When we originally installed MWiki in Apache we were told it would be #1. > > > > "two near-death experiences" > > This must be before my time, I know only of our spam attach, that was > > handled brilliantly and effectively by our sysops and the breakdown which > > was NOT mwiki but Ubuntu, and can happen to any VM (including cwiki). The > > breakdown was handled quite a lot faster than e.g. the breakdown we have > > (and have had for some time) on our buildbot for linux32. > > > > Yes, the first one was before you got involved. Don't get me wrong. > "Near-death" is better than dead ;-) > I still dont know what the second was...it can be only the spam attack, which are sysops handled well, and would not be able to handle as well in cwiki, or the ubuntu breakdown (which caused the new vm) which has nothing to do with mwiki. Just to be sure, I installed the new vm on behalf of and in cooperation with infra, had I not done it a infra person would have done it. > > > Mwiki is a supported and live product, where I get a lot of response > when I > > ask questions. > > > > I have now been sometime on the infra IRC, and to my best opinion > ooo-wiki2 > > (mwiki) gets more attention than many other VMs. > > > > - > > We had a mail thread less than a month ago, regarding Mwiki contra Cwiki, > > multiple PMC (including you) gave support to a transfeer, how come that > is > > no longer the right way to do things ? > > > > I did not say to not use MWiki. I said, "We need a plan for > increasing the base of support, either within the project, or by > getting Infra to officially support MWiki." Strength in numbers. > well I read the mail thread differently, the idea was to keep cwiki as scratch paper. I agree with your other mail about stratetic views, that was actually what I tried to do with the mwiki thread, but as I suspected handling and outcome depends on who takes the lead. This theme is not worth a long discussion...lets hope your ideas about strategic plans moves the community forward and enables people like me to understand where we are heading, so our resources can be used focussed. rgds Jan I > > -Rob > > > Rgds > > Jan I. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Rob > >> > >> > Regards, > >> > Andrea. > >> >
