On 8 September 2013 23:40, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 04/09/2013 Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:36 PM, janI wrote: >> >> I assume we want well-maintained servers that help us get our >> project-related tasks done, and also help serve our users. >> > > Yes we do. And Jan's proposal seems very reasonable and dictated from > experience (both personal experience and the experience of actually > maintaining these servers). > > > some thoughts on how admins could work, but in general I >>> believe we should convince infra to take over the vm responsibility and >>> keep our well functioning forum/wiki admins. >>> >> > Last time we approached Infra on this, their answer was: find resources > (people) within the OpenOffice project to take care of the non-standard > tools (MediaWiki, phpBB) and Infra can be there as a backup. I believe they > helped a bit respecting these lines so far. > > Handing over to Infra would indeed be "peace of mind" for us, but I still > think that your proposal makes sense in light of the above: Infra prefers > that project-specific tools are maintained by the project itself as a > first/primary contact, and escalate to Infra if needed. > > By the way, if you believe that Infra could now be available to support us > more closely, feel free to investigate. > > > maybe >> 3b) Try to evolve systems so users can implement their own wishes, in >> a way compatible with 1) and 2). For example, if routine logos and >> footers are synched to resources in the project's SVN tree, then any >> committer can update things. >> > > This is not feasible in the current state. Even ignoring the fact that > this issue derailed the discussion, I see no benefit in implementing this: > if we have a real (reasonable active) team maintaining the servers, and the > team is not a bottleneck for the community, we will be fine with it. I > won't feel "excluded" if I have to ask someone to change some > configuration: this routinely happens for Infra-maintained services, or for > our Bugzilla, and it works. > > > A good setup would be, 3 types of admin: >>> Each server will have an appointed "owner" (anchor-admin) >>> A number of persons have full sudo on a server (admin) >>> A number of persons can reboot/restart/work on po files (help-admin) >>> >> > Something that we might discuss (but I guess this is implicit in your > proposal) is to avoid that the same person is the "anchor-admin" (or > "contact-admin", i.e., the first point of contact) for all the three > machines. This might help in sharing the knowledge and mitigate the > "loneliness" you have experienced so far in maintaining our infrastructure. > just a short clarification, when I wrote this proposal, my intention was to offer being "anchor-admin" for all 3 vms for a shorter period, and hope one of the admins would like to more involved, so that person could in due time take over some or all of the vms. My experience with the vm-team is that it will be hard enough to find active admins. It would actually make a lot of sense that you continue to be the > "main/anchor-admin" for at least one of the machines, so that the other > machines can be smoothly transitioned and that the whole knowledge, not > only what's written in the documentation, can be shared. > Since I wrote this proposal a lot of things have happened and with the current environment, this is a challenge I am not ready for. I think this discussion is valuable and once consensus is reached, I will (like hopefully the rest of the vm-team) take a closer look and see if it fits with what I believe in. rgds jan I. > > > Regards, > Andrea. > > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
