To put that last sentence in a more positive manner: The future looks bright and is multi-coloured! But it is shrouded in layers of mists. Unfortunately, so is the future influx of funds.
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 4:22 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> > >
