incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From drew <d...@baseanswers.com>
Subject Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution?
Date Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:00:05 GMT
On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 05:38 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Bit late to pretend you're trying to be helpful
> here with the bits about NIH you like tossing around.
> 
> What questions are you asking again?  And what facts
> are you pointing out?  Seems to me we had a working
> agreementabout a month or so, settled entirely on-list,
> but yesterday Peter pitches a fit and you decide NOW
> is the time for complaints?  Gee if that's not kicking
> sand in the faces of the people who worked out this
> deal you'll have to excuse me while I figure out where
> else all this unwanted sand could've come from.

>From my recollection the discussion earlier always started from the
premise that Apache mirrors would take over, I thought because that was
the policy, only apache mirrors. 

Anyway - then somehow this all morphed and now it is weighted factors
sharing the downloads between 3 different mirror systems...and yes Peter
did finally voice is frustration, so yes I stopped and thought about it.

I asked when (how) it was determined that the Mirrorbrain service was
broken and had to be replaced?

I pointed out that it had never stopped serving up files, that TTBOMK
the mirror operators had never notified this project that they would no
longer work with the project.

As for NIH - well, if you have a policy that states only Apache httpd
can serve up Apache files as an Apache mirror.


> 
> 
> 
> 
> >________________________________
> > From: drew <drew@baseanswers.com>
> >To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 
> >Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:31 AM
> >Subject: Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution?
> > 
> >On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 03:23 -0400, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> >> Right.  The plan all along was to migrate the mirrorbrain network to apache
mirrors and supplement that with sf help.  That we all agreed to this only to have sand kicked
in our faces again is merely status quo for how this project operates.
> >
> >No one is kicking sand in anyones faces - but I am asking questions and
> >pointing out facts. If that is not considered acceptable practice to you
> >then the problem is not with this project.
> >
> >//drew
> >> 
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >> 
> >> On Apr 13, 2012, at 2:00 AM, Roberto Galoppini <rgaloppini@geek.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:04 PM, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> >> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 19:39 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >> >>> Hi Drew;
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> --- Gio 12/4/12, drew <drew@baseanswers.com> ha scritto:
> >> >>>> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 21:09 -0500,
> >> >>>> Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >> >>>>> Peter;
> >> >>>>> 
> >> >>>>> it's really amazing to see level of support and general
> >> >>>>> service that mirrorbrain has provided historically for
> >> >>>>> OpenOffice.
> >> >>>>> We haven't said no to mirrorbrain but you do understand
> >> >>>>> that we just couldn't
> >> >>>>> turn down the extra support offered by sourceforge.
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>>> Why not?
> >> >>>> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Because we just have no basis for rejecting mirrors.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Sure we do, groups; particularly non-profits turn down offers from
> >> >> commercial operators all the time. Lets be clear the SF offer is not
all
> >> >> about contributing to the project it is also to some degree about their
> >> >> commercial concerns - it is their business model.
> >> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > Let's be very clear about how we got here in the first place. As of the
> >> > 19th of March we were told by Infra that our help was welcomed. Just like
> >> > for the Extensions/Templates we committed to help, describing in detail
> >> > what we planned to do, eventually getting the green light on that plan.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >> 
> >> >> Personally, I'm not totally ad adverse, but there really needs to be
a
> >> >> good reason for doing so IMO and I certainly am not eager about dishing
> >> >> up ads to try a free subscription to MSO 365 while waiting for your
AOO
> >> >> download to finish - if it can be reasonably avoided.
> >> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > We are used to working with projects to make sure that displayed ads don't
> >> > undermine the projects' mission, and we intend to work with the PPMC if
any
> >> > issue with competitive ads arise.
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >> 
> >> >>> Infra did ask us to contact previous mirrors so we
> >> >>> need them, and the more, the better.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Yes, they did.
> >> >> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> I think you misunderstood: we really haven't voted at
> >> >>> all concerning mirrorbrain. and there was never any
> >> >>> notion of sourceforge's offer being exclusive. We will
> >> >>> accept all the mirrors that offer to carry us.
> >> >> 
> >> >> But SF really isn't an offer of mirror servers, it is asking us to
> >> >> divert our traffic to their site for inclusion in their business
> >> >> operations.
> >> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > We offered help exactly in the way we were asked. It is true we have to
> >> > balance the needs of our business with our desire to help the community,
> >> > but it's unfair to suggest that we are not acting in the best interest
of
> >> > Apache OpenOffice.
> >> > 
> >> > Roberto
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> >> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> I do recall infra had issues concerning how to make
> >> >>> mirrorbrain work with the Apache mirrors but that is
> >> >>> a completely different issue outside the scope of the
> >> >>> PPMC or decisions that are taken here.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Right - and that discussion presumed that there was a need to bring
the
> >> >> mirrorbrain servers into the Apache mirror network, the question is
how
> >> >> did that decision come about. My understanding is that this comes from
a
> >> >> standing policy decision at Apache, that Apache releases go out on
> >> >> Apache mirrors - I guess that's correct?
> >> >> 
> >> >> Well, if that is the case then how do you reconcile SF - in the case
of
> >> >> extensions/templates it was easy, they are not official Apache
> >> >> releases.
> >> >> 
> >> >> In the case of the binary releases I guess it is the same thing then,
> >> >> certainly there is plenty of reason to believe that a good portion
of
> >> >> Apache does not consider any binary release as official - just a
> >> >> convenience, which is fine - but then we are back to the question of
why
> >> >> not use the system already in place - mirrorbrain?
> >> >> 
> >> >> //drew
> >> >> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> Pedro.
> >> >>> 
> >> >>> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > ====
> >> > This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above.
It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and
any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s)
from your system. Thank you.
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >



Mime
View raw message