On 7 March 2013 15:55, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 8:56 AM, janI <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 7 March 2013 09:53, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Rob Weir wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > >>> > >>>> "Sustainability concerns due to our use of unsupported applications > (from > >>>> Apache Infra perspective), including phpBB and MWiki and reliance on a > >>>> very > >>>> small number of system admins." ... > >>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/** > >>>> Website+Strategic+Plan< > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Website+Strategic+Plan > > > >>>> > >>> And let's not forget alternative ways of addressing this concern: > >>> 1) Work with Infra to make MWiki be officially supported. > >>> or > >>> 2) Form our own admin group > >>> > >> > >> Indeed, I see no reasons to revisit, especially at the current stage, > the > >> MWiki vs [any other wiki] issue. > >> > >> MWiki is the biggest source of information about the project; while its > >> content is often outdated, it's still very useful. Existing links to the > >> MWiki pages are in the thousands (or more). It has been updated with a > huge > >> effort lead by Jan, and it is now stable and reliable. > >> > > > > I totally agree with this point of view, but when a PMC raises doubt > about > > using Mwiki, it is something we all have to listen carefully to, afterall > > one of the points in being PMC is to secure the long term stability of > the > > community and product. > > > > This is also the reason I researched cwiki and moin...not that I > personally > > would like to change, but because I read the mail from one PMC and the > > reactions from others. > > > > But please note that I never suggested moving off of MWiki. > > > > >> > >> If our problem is to enlarge the administrators group for MWiki or to > get > >> it officially supported, I prefer to explore these options first. We > >> already have three committers who can administer MWiki on the system > >> administration (shell access) side, right? (jani, imacat, rbircher). How > >> many more do we need? I've also just asked Infra for clarifications > about > >> the "supported applications" issue. > >> > > > > At the moment we have no-one with "just" shell access, all 3 have (or can > > have) root access. Furthermore rjung (infra) pratically maintains httpd, > > gmcdonald (infra-root) helps with more or less everything and Clayton > helps > > with mwiki setup (without access). BIG Thanks to all three for their > great > > help ! > > > > After the upgrade we have had one incident (which rjung handled), one > > upgrade proposition (which I handled wrong) and 2 request for change (one > > pending and one I have handled). At the same time, nothing have been done > > "inside" mwiki regarding old pages, strange categories, spammed paged, > > misleading information. > > > > At the moment 2/3 of the time I use on mwiki goes to logistic and > > coordinating people, if the group is expanded my experience is that the > > overhead grows exponentially. I respect the wish of the community and > when > > the group is expanded, I will withdraw (after a handover), I am here to > get > > things done and not to coordinate people. > > > > I fully understand we need many sysop, and the idea of having a mail list > > (or just a wiki-page, with sysop access level) is a good idea. Our > biggest > > job at the moment is not sys-admin but normal sysop work. > > > > This is what I see: > > 1) We brought over MWiki and had a single person (Terry) who really > knew what was going on. We may have had others who had permissions, > but they were not (IMHO) able to keep the wiki stable. > > 2) Terry left, and the wiki was not maintained as well. Eventually it > fell due to massive spam. No one of the existing admins stepped up to > fix the problem. Whether this was from skill, permissions, time, > inclination, I don't know and I don't judge. But the actions were to > disable new account creation and treat that as a new way of life. > > 3) You stepped up and took the lead on getting MWiki to be properly > maintained again. If you had not done that I am pretty sure that we > would not have the ability for new years to create accounts today. We > were already down on one knee when you offered to help. I'm pretty > sure without your help things would continue to degrade. > > 4) So what would things look like without you? Sure we have others > who have some permissions. But is that enough? (It wasn't enough > before). What do we need to do so we are not dependent on a single > person? Not just from a theoretical standpoint (X and Y have > permissions) but from a practical skill and knowledge level as well. >
I think there are too much focus on the sysadmin part, which isnt really a problem..mwiki is very stable, it needs an upgrade now and then (2 times a year in average). Our httpd, ats, firewall, ubuntu needs a lot more regular maintenance, and thats where people like rjung and gmcdonald are of great help. I know "sidestepping". I can see your point of having multiple active skilled persons on the team (even though I dont agree with it), but getting more volunteers without the skills/motivation is simply not helping ! Before I jumped in there has been plenty of time for other volunteers to step up alongside with the 2 who already have access. If someone comes along today, I will happily tell them how the current setup (and now it is even documented in svn). As I wrote I respect whatever decision is made, but please also respect my wish. I do want to use my limited time to bring our community forward and not discussing, which is going to happen with a larger number of sysadmins. > > 5) Note the same applies to phpBB as well. > > From a high-level perspective, one way is to think of it like this: > As a large project with diverse technical infrastructure we make high > demands on Infra, hardware, bandwidth, sys admin time, etc. Since we > have such a dependency on this technical infrastructure, more so than > other Apache projects which are less end-user facing, this starts us > off with greater risks. Our use of non-standard services like MWiki > and phpBB increases the risk. Fine. So how do we balance those risks? > Simple answer is "we dont", we have the people, we have the needed help from infra. I stepped in when needed, when I am not around another person steps in. I wish we had the same attention on our the software...how many people do we have the really understands the build procedure or for that matter the l10n process ? How do we handle a situation deep in the software. I think the support for our software is pretty much like mwiki, in many cases only 0 or 1 who knows the code, and a couple who knows in generally. But I agree in a strategy paper anything can be written, and if our main focus shall be on non-essential parts like mwiki etc. so be it. rgds Jan I. > > I honestly think we should consider more how to stabilize the "inside" of > > mwiki instead of focussing on the sysadmin part, but that is just my > > opinion. > > > > These are not mutually exclusive options. One of the luxuries of a > strategic plan is I can suggest more than one priority. > > Regards, > > -Rob > > > rgds > > Jan I. > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> Regards, > >> Andrea. > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org< > [email protected]> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
