www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Upayavira ...@odoko.co.uk>
Subject Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:23:34 GMT
I think another point I’d like to see more emphasised is that the CMS
serves/served a purpose. There were endless debates in and around infra
about how to build websites - it was an ongoing, and often painful
thing. What Joe managed to do was to pull that all together into a
single system, and in doing so, successfully silenced the debate - as in
there was nothing much to talk about, the CMS did what it said on the
box, and gave the ASF what it needed at the time.

Roll forwards to now - with hindsight, we can see that having had that
service built by a single individual, not a team, and it having been
built using technologies that are an integral part of the OS of choice
at the time, now cause us problems, and given the excellent work the
infra team is now doing under David’s guidance, the fact that the
current infra team does not understand the tech behind the CMS,
something needs to be done.

I guess what I’m saying could be summarised into two statements:

“Thank you to Joe for the significant contribution to the ASF that the
CMS is, that he took on off his own back (albeit on ASF time) to solve a
problem that many folks at the ASF were having.”


“Thank you to David and his team for taking seriously the task of
looking at all of the services that the ASF has, at the stack we have,
and how best to provide those services going forwards, especially when
this involves making challenging decisions."


On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 08:32 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Joe Schaefer
> <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Well no.  You get to have input into the actual decision, along with other contractors
and members of the infra President's committee.  Infra operates as a hierarchy, your decisions
will bubble up to the VP and then the President who reports to the board.  The board doesn't
have a dog in this debate, so there's no reason for them to second guess the chain of command.
> > All anyone outside the operational chain of command can do is to try to influence
that decision making process from the *outside*.  It's up to you guys to choose the best course
of action for the org as you see fit.
> If the President were to make a decision that significantly made
> projects unhappy, the board would indeed have a dog in this debate.
> But as the President (and, for that matter, the Infra team) do
> actively solicit input from the affected parties, this is unlikely to
> happen.
> Net: don't focus so much on concepts such as 'inside' and 'outside'.
> The key question here seems to be balancing a desire to reduce
> overlapping services and a desire to keep being responsive to PMC
> needs.
> > Naturally there is a lot of responsibility in having that kind of decision making
authority.  I've said more than my peace on the subject to try to provide my experience with
the service as it is currently used by projects.  Basing your decision solely on my input
and that of your peers is not what I have in mind.
> > Projects need to give input on what the implications of the proposal mean for them.
 And they need to do it themselves, not by sitting behind my "advocacy".Again all I want from
this is a good solid well founded decision and plan of action;none of the projects I work
on are cms customers so I'd like to step out of this conversation from a focal viewpoint.
> - Sam Ruby
> >      On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:08 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
> >
> >
> >  A preliminary decision. Note the key word. Rightly, infra doesn't want to
> > have to maintain an ever growing array of overlapping or duplicate
> > services. If we are going to "deprecate" the CMS, then obviously the end
> > game is decommissioning. But again, that decision has not been made one way
> > or the other, nor is it going to be made solely by the contractors, or the
> > infra team alone, etc. That's why infra presented the RFC in the first
> > place.
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> According to the proposal Tony wrote infra plans to make a preliminary
> >> decision on the matter on March 31.  That the rhetoric has gone from
> >> deprecating to decommissioning is a significant clarification of intentions.
> >>
> >>
> >>      On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:55 PM, Chris Lambertus <
> >> cml@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Mar 25, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com.INVALID>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the
> >> service as it now stands
> >>
> >> No, this is NOT the explicit statement. I thought I was very clear on that
> >> in section 1(a) of the FAQ, as was Tony in his initial email (“So we would
> >> like to solicit feedback on our proposal…”), so I will make it as clear
> >> possible once again:
> >>
> >>
> >> Infra does not have any specific action related to the CMS planned at this
> >> time.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is ONLY a request for commentary from the community on a proposal by
> >> Infra to work towards decommissioning the CMS. It is NOT an express
> >> statement by the infra group that we will be taking any specific action(s).
> >> We seek input from the community on this proposal so that we can make more
> >> informed decisions on the future direction of CMS support, whether that be
> >> via replacement, via resources applied to bring the existing CMS to
> >> acceptable support standards, or some other option TBD.
> >>
> >> Here is the link to the FAQ:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/CMS+Decommissioning+RFC+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions
> >>
> >> -Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

View raw message