On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote: > On 4/23/15 5:41 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: >> Infra already supports Whimsy so having a TLP is irrelevant in that >> respect (although on reason Sam is doing this is because infra >> expressed a concern about maintaining a service that only had Sam >> working on it). > > To be clear: is the current whimsy.apache.org with a variety of board > agenda, email lookup, etc. services a formally infra-supported service? > Just curious. I would lobby that it should be formally supported at a > normal level (i.e. it's not critical level like email/svn is). > (Apologies if we already formally talked about this)
Short version: Ross has requested that it be, but the reality isn't quite there yet. Longer version: to be clear, there is no 'fault' in what I am about to say. If the VM goes down, or becomes inaccessible, the infra team does quickly take responsibility. Tool by tool, however is a different matter. We are trying to work through the details. An example: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9095 As stated there I believe that there is a big difference between the secretary workbench and the STV vote explorer tool in terms of foundation priority. > The service is separate from the TLP status. We run the service to help > our own project operations, which we'll do in any case. The presumed > pTLP would be to develop the code; I could easily imagine some of the > code being useful as examples outside of the ASF. Being a pTLP would > also make development easier for newcomers, since code/mailinglists/etc. > would all be normalized with other projects. The relationship is tenuous, but there is a relationship. The infrastructure team should not be deploying or held responsible for tools that are developed and maintained by a single individual. It doesn't matter whether that person has been around for more than a decade, or is formally on the infra payroll. Or both, as was the case with Joe and the CMS. To take an example, the board agenda tool should be maintained by a community. The infra team should have some responsibility for deploying and monitoring that tool, but shouldn't be responsible for feature development. Of course individuals on the infrastructure team would be welcome to be a part of the community. > I'm +1 and will join. Great! Please update the wiki page. > - Shane - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
