On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 14:28 +0000, John D. Ament wrote: > All, > > Its been discussed a few times, and I'd like to provide clear feedback to > the infra team on how to implement going forward.
I don't recollect it being discussed in these terms. Could it be that it's appeared as a sub-thread of some other discussion? > Typically, the addresses $podling.apache.org and $ > podling.incubator.apache.org work, and have worked for a while. Indeed. The downside is that it's potentially confusing. Especially if a marketing department sees it and prefers to reference the URL without "incubator". Perhaps it would make sense for $podling.apache.org to issue a 302 redirect to the incubator? Then it's there for people and search engines, but the potential for being accidentally misleading is much reduced. > This is a call to vote on whether the IPMC agrees to this or not. If they > do, I will ask infra to further clean this up, as DNS seems to be an issue > at times for podlings. The benefit is that for SEO, the website URL does > not change. > > I'm going to leave this open for 72 hours, at least and hope for some > binding votes on this subject. > [+1] I want the two URLs to both work the same. > [+/- 0] Don't care > [-1] I want the $podling.incubator.apache.org URL to be the one that works, > including emails. I think this voting scheme scheme is broken: it triggers a natural bias to +1, even if you'd reversed the options! (this was a big issue in gerrymandering our referendum - there have been academic studies on how the question affects how people vote). Anyway, -1 (binding), at least until my points above about potential for misleading have been answered. -- Nick Kew --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
