SSL *is* fixed, or at least the issue has been worked around. The issue here is the long-term maintenance of SSL, to ensure that it continues to work and can be quickly fixed if it breaks, and can be extended as needed - particularly during the critical fundraising period. Having a staff member sat in the office monitoring and able to quickly fix things as needed solves that problem in a very efficient manner. Having a contractor would solve it, but in slower, more expensive and less long-term manner.
Thanks, Mike On 25 Jun 2012, at 19:48, Charles Matthews wrote: > > > On 25 June 2012 19:39, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 June 2012 19:31, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> > wrote: > > Could you answer the question? You are making an assertion which rather begs > > the question why a community member hasn't done exactly that. > > No, I can't answer the question because it is based on a false > premise. As you know, you can prove anything you like if you start > from a false premise. > > > I wanted to analyse the difference between what you were saying about Mike > > being will to hire contractors, and the fact that he is not willing to do so > > in a matter that actually now impacts, via the fundraiser, on the > > livelihoods of six employees (as it will be when the dev is hired). I want > > to understand the decision-making process Mike employs. > > > > I thought I might be able to understand that much. The hiring decision is > > apparently too complicated to explain to the community on this list, so > > let's start with just one instance of what is involved. > > As I've explained, the SSL will get fixed. There is no question of > whether WMUK (this isn't Mike's decision, he's just the one that did > the hard work of drafting the job description) is willing to fix it. > The question is simply over the best way to go about fixing it. The > chapter has decided to go about fixing it by hiring a general > technical member of staff. > > Leadership is often not about making the right decision, but just > about making a decision. By far the worst outcome would be to spend > ages debating this and end up not having anyone in time to fix > anything before the fundraiser. As Jon has said, the board have shown > excellent leadership by making a decision when a decision needed to be > made. Whether it was the optimal decision really isn't important when > compared to the downside of not making a decision at all. > > OK, I have an answer of sorts. To me fixing the SSL looks urgent. So one > could say that paying the going commercial rate to have it fixed, by someone > who knows what he or she is doing, is a good idea. Then the hiring of a > technical person (I think a CTO is needed right now, not a dev, but that > appears to be a minority view) could proceed uncluttered by that decision. > What you are telling me, Tom, is that this is not the way the Board thinks. > > Charles > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
