Updated proposal with everyone from board@ that expressed interest in being involved
-Jake On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> > wrote: > > On 4/23/15 5:41 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > >> Infra already supports Whimsy so having a TLP is irrelevant in that > >> respect (although on reason Sam is doing this is because infra > >> expressed a concern about maintaining a service that only had Sam > >> working on it). > > > > To be clear: is the current whimsy.apache.org with a variety of board > > agenda, email lookup, etc. services a formally infra-supported service? > > Just curious. I would lobby that it should be formally supported at a > > normal level (i.e. it's not critical level like email/svn is). > > (Apologies if we already formally talked about this) > > Short version: Ross has requested that it be, but the reality isn't > quite there yet. > > Longer version: to be clear, there is no 'fault' in what I am about to say. > > If the VM goes down, or becomes inaccessible, the infra team does > quickly take responsibility. Tool by tool, however is a different > matter. We are trying to work through the details. An example: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9095 > > As stated there I believe that there is a big difference between the > secretary workbench and the STV vote explorer tool in terms of > foundation priority. > > > The service is separate from the TLP status. We run the service to help > > our own project operations, which we'll do in any case. The presumed > > pTLP would be to develop the code; I could easily imagine some of the > > code being useful as examples outside of the ASF. Being a pTLP would > > also make development easier for newcomers, since code/mailinglists/etc. > > would all be normalized with other projects. > > The relationship is tenuous, but there is a relationship. The > infrastructure team should not be deploying or held responsible for > tools that are developed and maintained by a single individual. It > doesn't matter whether that person has been around for more than a > decade, or is formally on the infra payroll. Or both, as was the case > with Joe and the CMS. > > To take an example, the board agenda tool should be maintained by a > community. The infra team should have some responsibility for > deploying and monitoring that tool, but shouldn't be responsible for > feature development. Of course individuals on the infrastructure team > would be welcome to be a part of the community. > > > I'm +1 and will join. > > Great! Please update the wiki page. > > > - Shane > > - Sam Ruby > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
