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 decisions. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org > wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> 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 >
