community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pierre Smits <>
Subject Re: overhaul proposal
Date Thu, 15 Jan 2015 15:22:13 GMT
Maybe we should considering changing the subject as this seems bigger than
just an overhaul of one of the front ends of the ASF?

Yes, it all has to do with the ROI (the benefits at large vs the costs) for
the ASF. And such need to be determined regarding the future, not the
present day or the past. The time that the ASF was a one project endeavour
has past, and the importance of the foundation in the umfeld is growing day
by day. People are turning more and more  to the ASF with requests to host
their open source projects.

This all leads to more demand on solutions and services provided by INFRA.
But also on our offices. More people/projects involved means more work on
the heads in Brand Management, Legal, Communications, Secretary, etc. And
these offices also use solutions/services of INFRA and/or third parties.

Thus, any decision of this kind is should be taken must be weighed with the
 future - the 5 year view - of the ASF and its offices in mind.

So, what are the future demands on our offices? And how does that impact
the solutions and services rendered by INFRA, and/or third parties? To what
budget requirements will the availability of those (future) solutions and
services lead, with the use of current setup? Can costs be saved by
rethinking that setup and replacing it by something else, and do the
projected savings outweigh the projected cost of change?

Such questions must be considered regularly, because there is no guarantee
that current influx of funds will be the same or even increase equally with
the increase of needs/wants and pleasures of offices and projects and
inherently the cost associated to all that. And then we can make the proper

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

Services & Solutions for Cloud-
Based Manufacturing, Professional
Services and Retail & Trade

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Rich Bowen <> wrote:
> > ...*historically*, when this kind of thing has happened (project
> implements,
> > thing becomes critical), gradually it becomes the responsibility of
> Infra,
> > not of the project, to do ongoing maintenance....
> Yes, this is why I'm reluctant to encourage any initiative that
> requires our infrastructure team to support new tools. And I suspect
> infra shares that reluctance ;-)
> That being said, it's always a question of benefits vs. costs - but if
> a simple thing using technologies that every web developer is supposed
> to know works the choice is a no-brainer for me.
> -Bertrand

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message