www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thilo Götz <twgo...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: Paid staff for infrastructure? was: Git Tasks
Date Mon, 29 Nov 2010 08:46:00 GMT
Great summary for the uninitiated, thanks!


On 11/28/2010 19:50, Paul Querna wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> wrote:
>> Paul Querna:
>>> For the foreseeable future we have no dedicated resources that can be
>>> put to work on the various full git support tasks.
>> Hi,
>> I don't know much about the inner workings of the ASF yet, so please excuse my
>> naive question: Is there any paid staff to do infrastructure work, if so, how
>> many?
>> I've only contributed a few patches to one project by now, but I already got
>> the impression, that there is a lot of room for improvements in
>> infrastructure:
>> - The build servers seems to have issues quite frequently
>> - The GIT migration
>> - There could be much more done in automated QA for java projects
>> It seems kind of ridiculous, that projects like HTTPD, Hadoop, Cassandra,
>> Lucene and many others are used and developed by the biggest companies around,
>> but that the development infrastructure for these projects is in a rather
>> sorry state. Shouldn't it be rather easy for the ASF to raise some money for
>> infrastructure?
> Direct link for members:
> <https://svn.apache.org/repos/private/foundation/Finances/2010-budget.txt>
> For everyone else, search for "Attachment AE" in these board minutes:
> <http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2010/board_minutes_2010_04_21.txt>
> (As a side note, is there any reason we don't publish the budget more
> directly under public records?)
> For FY2010, the ASF is budgeting $252,216.00 on infrastructure, about
> 45% of total expenses.  Before a few years ago, the infrastructure
> truly was run on a "shoe string" budget.  Even having a real budget is
> a relatively new thing.
> Of that 250k for Infrastructure, about 160k is for staff, and the vast
> majority of the remaining is for machine replacement and a few small
> expansions.  One of the primary goals this year is focused on
> replacing the 3-4 year old deprecated Sun hardware from the
> infrastructure.
> The ASF contracts two full time system administrators, Joe and Gavin.
> Their primary goals are about "keeping the lights on" for core
> services, like the website, account creation, etc.  Gavin was added a
> little more than a year ago, and is focusing on more build-related
> services.  They are responsible for supporting the ~2600 committers.
> Things like password resets that volunteers tended to not get around
> to for weeks get relatively quick responses.
> Everyone else involved in the ASF infrastructure is a volunteer.  We
> always want more volunteers, so please, contribute :-)
> People might disagree with the priorities, but you can take that up
> with Phillip (the VP of Infra). I believe that focusing on keeping
> core services online is a good thing for the paid staff to do.
> Expecting them to do all their normal tasks, which this year includes
> rebuilding/upgrading more than 30% of our servers, and work on 'new'
> projects like full git support is not reasonable.
> Yes, the ASF hosts many different important projects, but the ASF's
> funding and operational model is very different from say, the Eclipse
> foundation, which has 15 odd FT staff:
> <http://www.eclipse.org/org/foundation/staff.php>.  (I couldn't find
> their budget online, it would be interesting to see what they are
> spending on infrastructure).
> HTH,
> Paul

View raw message