incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution?
Date Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:14:22 GMT
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Apr 13, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> I really appreciated Peter's description of how the MirrorBrain system works
and the history behind it.
>>>
>>> Peter is running the MirrorBrain network for the project and is the person who
really made sure that OOo legacy downloads have continued.
>>>
>>> I know that I do not like advertising and I am not sure that having to police
SourceForge's advertising choices for incompatible ads is anything I want to volunteer time
for, but can that Office 365 link please go away yesterday?
>
> No response to this?
>

Response to that?  No.  I don't feel obligated to pile on to every
argument.  Sorry.  If someone wants to go on a crusade against links
on the openoffice.org website that go to advertisement-supported or
other commercial webpages, then they will be quite busy.  I'd
recommend starting with our support page.  Or our page of openoffice
consultants.  Or our "distribution" network page of those selling
OpenOffice CD's for a mere "handling charge".  If you want to purify
with fire, then go ahead.   Personally I'm fine with that as a
business model, and I'm glad that companies with a working business
model are contributing to the project.   So long as we're not implying
Apache endorsement of 3rd parties, this should be fine.

>>> I don't like the way the download test was announced and done at once. It was
JFDI and no discussion with volunteers like Marcus who understand the download logic.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, 4 days advance notice of the test was given on this list.
>> No one raised questions. This was not JFDI.
>
> Notice was given on April 6 that you were about to apply patches. There were comments
from Marcus before that on Roberto's thread where he didn't think it would work. I don't think
that there was consensus on the web changes. Are you saying the 4 days started with Roberto's
announcement?
>

And where do you think the patches came from?  They were posted
earlier in BZ, etc.  The request for a test went back further, with no
objections.  And the discussion with SF and Infra, also on ooo-dev,
about them handling some of the download traffic, went back even
further, also was without objections.

I'm sorry you didn't put all the pieces together.  But those actually
doing the work seemed to be OK with the pace.

>>> Sand can be kicked in more than one direction.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed.  But piling on after the fact, instead of raising issues at
>> the time things are proposed, is really, really sad.
>
> I think it was unfair of Joe to take Peter's comments as kicking sand in people's face.
Maybe he felt sand being kicked in his face. Peter has been working on OOo mirrors for how
long?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:38 AM, 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: 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