I really appreciated Peter's description of how the MirrorBrain system works and the history behind it.
Peter is running the MirrorBrain network for the project and is the person who really made sure that OOo legacy downloads have continued. I know that I do not like advertising and I am not sure that having to police SourceForge's advertising choices for incompatible ads is anything I want to volunteer time for, but can that Office 365 link please go away yesterday? I don't like the way the download test was announced and done at once. It was JFDI and no discussion with volunteers like Marcus who understand the download logic. Sand can be kicked in more than one direction. Regards, Dave On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:38 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > Bit late to pretend you're trying to be helpful > here with the bits about NIH you like tossing around. > > What questions are you asking again? And what facts > are you pointing out? Seems to me we had a working > agreementabout a month or so, settled entirely on-list, > but yesterday Peter pitches a fit and you decide NOW > is the time for complaints? Gee if that's not kicking > sand in the faces of the people who worked out this > deal you'll have to excuse me while I figure out where > else all this unwanted sand could've come from. > > > > >> ________________________________ >> From: drew <d...@baseanswers.com> >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:31 AM >> Subject: Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution? >> >> On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 03:23 -0400, Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> Right. The plan all along was to migrate the mirrorbrain network to apache >>> mirrors and supplement that with sf help. That we all agreed to this only >>> to have sand kicked in our faces again is merely status quo for how this >>> project operates. >> >> No one is kicking sand in anyones faces - but I am asking questions and >> pointing out facts. If that is not considered acceptable practice to you >> then the problem is not with this project. >> >> //drew >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Apr 13, 2012, at 2:00 AM, Roberto Galoppini <rgalopp...@geek.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:04 PM, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 19:39 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>>>>> Hi Drew; >>>>>> >>>>>> --- Gio 12/4/12, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> ha scritto: >>>>>>> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 21:09 -0500, >>>>>>> Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>>>>>>> Peter; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> it's really amazing to see level of support and general >>>>>>>> service that mirrorbrain has provided historically for >>>>>>>> OpenOffice. >>>>>>>> We haven't said no to mirrorbrain but you do understand >>>>>>>> that we just couldn't >>>>>>>> turn down the extra support offered by sourceforge. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because we just have no basis for rejecting mirrors. >>>>> >>>>> Sure we do, groups; particularly non-profits turn down offers from >>>>> commercial operators all the time. Lets be clear the SF offer is not all >>>>> about contributing to the project it is also to some degree about their >>>>> commercial concerns - it is their business model. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let's be very clear about how we got here in the first place. As of the >>>> 19th of March we were told by Infra that our help was welcomed. Just like >>>> for the Extensions/Templates we committed to help, describing in detail >>>> what we planned to do, eventually getting the green light on that plan. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I'm not totally ad adverse, but there really needs to be a >>>>> good reason for doing so IMO and I certainly am not eager about dishing >>>>> up ads to try a free subscription to MSO 365 while waiting for your AOO >>>>> download to finish - if it can be reasonably avoided. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We are used to working with projects to make sure that displayed ads don't >>>> undermine the projects' mission, and we intend to work with the PPMC if any >>>> issue with competitive ads arise. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Infra did ask us to contact previous mirrors so we >>>>>> need them, and the more, the better. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, they did. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you misunderstood: we really haven't voted at >>>>>> all concerning mirrorbrain. and there was never any >>>>>> notion of sourceforge's offer being exclusive. We will >>>>>> accept all the mirrors that offer to carry us. >>>>> >>>>> But SF really isn't an offer of mirror servers, it is asking us to >>>>> divert our traffic to their site for inclusion in their business >>>>> operations. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We offered help exactly in the way we were asked. It is true we have to >>>> balance the needs of our business with our desire to help the community, >>>> but it's unfair to suggest that we are not acting in the best interest of >>>> Apache OpenOffice. >>>> >>>> Roberto >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I do recall infra had issues concerning how to make >>>>>> mirrorbrain work with the Apache mirrors but that is >>>>>> a completely different issue outside the scope of the >>>>>> PPMC or decisions that are taken here. >>>>> >>>>> Right - and that discussion presumed that there was a need to bring the >>>>> mirrorbrain servers into the Apache mirror network, the question is how >>>>> did that decision come about. My understanding is that this comes from a >>>>> standing policy decision at Apache, that Apache releases go out on >>>>> Apache mirrors - I guess that's correct? >>>>> >>>>> Well, if that is the case then how do you reconcile SF - in the case of >>>>> extensions/templates it was easy, they are not official Apache >>>>> releases. >>>>> >>>>> In the case of the binary releases I guess it is the same thing then, >>>>> certainly there is plenty of reason to believe that a good portion of >>>>> Apache does not consider any binary release as official - just a >>>>> convenience, which is fine - but then we are back to the question of why >>>>> not use the system already in place - mirrorbrain? >>>>> >>>>> //drew >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Pedro. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ==== >>>> This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It >>>> may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the >>>> intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, >>>> distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly >>>> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately >>>> notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and >>>> any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you. >>> >> >> >> >>
