Hi! > That's... completely missing the point. Yes the specific errors faced were > unexpected or unforseen, BUT they were a* direct result* of the maintenance > between 13:00 and 14:00. I am simply passing on the feeling of our > readership; which was that the situation was badly communicated to them.
As majority of our users are anons, who visit us once a day or two, we should probably have started a communication campaign at least two months before the maintenance. We practice a lot during fundraisers :-) OTOH, if there's no downtime, maybe we're causing quite some frustration with superfluous communication? :-) > I am trying to share my experience here as a sysadmin and website operator; Oh, finally we got some sysadmins and website operators here. As a sysadmin you sure understand that in larger distributed systems which are not all built on a set of SPOFs there can be various failure modes, happening at various layers and various fuzziness. As a website operator you sure know that it is lots of effort to prepare boilerplates for every possible situation :-) > users hate downtime/maintenance, and will complain about it endlessly. You have some annoying users, our users are awesome and don't complain endlessly! > Improving our communication of planned maintenance is definitely a good idea. So is curing cancer. Marcus Buck wrote: > Domas, what are you trying to achieve with your comments on Tom's > suggestions? Put some clue in? > The sensible reaction (from a person who is involved in the maintenance) > would be: I know nobody likes this, but sensible reaction is to work on good operation rather than standing in front of a mirror and trying five hundred different "I'm sorry" phrases. You look too much from that single position, that "communication is good", without weighting costs or other options. Cheers, Domas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
