Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[Ryan Lane]

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> I usually steer clear of these sort of battles, but it looks like it's
> time to state the obvious: *we need to work together better*.
>
> We're wiki people, damn it.  We're the people[1] who figured out how to
> build an encyclopedia through (effectively) an anonymous system when those
> with less imagination were skeptical what it could even work at all.  Now,
> we're fighting against ourselves about technology to support our wiki work
> and it is only wasting time, energy and social capitol.
>
> DaB, I don't follow toolserver-l as well as I should.  What can I do to
> help make sure that the Toolserver cluster is well supplied *at least* until
> labs meets 99.9% of tool developers needs.  Do I need to lobby the WMF?
>  WMDE?
>
>
Ryan, I'm sure it was not out of some sort of malicious intent, but a large
> number of toolserver users and especially DaB are getting a raw deal.  At
> some point, someone seems to have suggested that WMF Labs ought to replace
> the Toolserver.  This is painful because, while Labs is not yet ready for
> us, the Toolserver is already being phased out.  It's not fair to just say,
> "Come on over to Labs and help us."  I don't see how jumping ship before
> the next one shows up is a good idea.  The majority of us are doing our
> work as volunteers.  We can't just manifest extra maintainer hours in order
> to spend developer time on Labs.  We're already spending more time dealing
> with Toolserver issues than we normally would.
>
>
I don't think it's necessary to lobby anyone. WMDE has agreed to continue
funding TS during the transition period, and the final decommissioning date
is 2014-12-31 (see ).


> Finally, the Toolserver isn't just a resource.  It's our community.  A
> community is far more valuable than technology.  If we don't preserve our
> community, we'll all lose.  So please, when we're fighting each other, our
> first thought should be how to not need to fight anymore.
>
>
That's what I'm encouraging as well. I'd like the community to move intact
to Labs, including DaB. Fighting each other won't get us anywhere. If we
all work together to build the new environment, it'll go quicker and we'll
resolve issues together.

- Ryan
___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[Sumana Harihareswara]

Since I evidently fail at trying to keep my thank-yous offlist: Aaron,
thanks for the note.

I regret that DaB. and other members of the Toolserver community have
gotten changed timelines and confused and changing messages around tools
support. It sounds like DaB. and other Toolserver community members are
still smarting from some past miscommunications and the feeling of
having something taken away from them.  I am sorry for those past problems.

What we all want to do is work to provide strong, well-supported places
for our community to make and host bots and tools -- and WMF and WMDE
have put a bunch more effort into that goal in the last half-year or so,
to avoid a repeat of past problems.  (I especially appreciate the work
by Silke and Coren on this, just to shout out.)

I'm grateful for the work DaB. has done in the past, and I think the
survey data is pretty useful to help us see how to move forward -- it
sounds like we'll have to contact Mono once more stuff is set up on Labs
to help with the move. :)

DaB. said: "Switching or helping with Labs would signal that I'm fine
with all what the WMF did – and I'm not."  I don't think other people
would read cooperation that way; I think most of us collaborate on
projects where we aren't 100% in agreement with all the decisions our
colleagues made, and we can balance disagreeing and working together.  I
hope to work with you.

with regards,
Sumana
-- 
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation

On 05/02/2013 11:24 AM, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
> Thank you, more than I can say.
> -Sumana
> 
> On 05/02/2013 11:20 AM, Aaron Halfaker wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> I usually steer clear of these sort of battles, but it looks like it's time
>> to state the obvious: *we need to work together better*.
>>
>> We're wiki people, damn it.  We're the people[1] who figured out how to
>> build an encyclopedia through (effectively) an anonymous system when those
>> with less imagination were skeptical what it could even work at all.  Now,
>> we're fighting against ourselves about technology to support our wiki work
>> and it is only wasting time, energy and social capitol.
>>
>> DaB, I don't follow toolserver-l as well as I should.  What can I do to
>> help make sure that the Toolserver cluster is well supplied *at least* until
>> labs meets 99.9% of tool developers needs.  Do I need to lobby the WMF?
>>  WMDE?
>>
>> Ryan, I'm sure it was not out of some sort of malicious intent, but a large
>> number of toolserver users and especially DaB are getting a raw deal.  At
>> some point, someone seems to have suggested that WMF Labs ought to replace
>> the Toolserver.  This is painful because, while Labs is not yet ready for
>> us, the Toolserver is already being phased out.  It's not fair to just say,
>> "Come on over to Labs and help us."  I don't see how jumping ship before
>> the next one shows up is a good idea.  The majority of us are doing our
>> work as volunteers.  We can't just manifest extra maintainer hours in order
>> to spend developer time on Labs.  We're already spending more time dealing
>> with Toolserver issues than we normally would.
>>
>> Finally, the Toolserver isn't just a resource.  It's our community.  A
>> community is far more valuable than technology.  If we don't preserve our
>> community, we'll all lose.  So please, when we're fighting each other, our
>> first thought should be how to not need to fight anymore.
>>
>> So here we are.  Today was wasted arguing about who was wronged.  How do we
>> work together better tomorrow?
>>
>> -Aaron
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:05 AM, DaB.  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>> At Thursday 02 May 2013 15:29:07 DaB. wrote:
 I'm confused. I thought we were all here to support the readers, editors,
 researchers and developers of the Wikimedia projects? If the toolserver
>>> is
 empty because Labs is accomplishing the goal, isn't that a good thing?

 I've asked this before: why not help with Labs, rather than fighting
 everyone? Let's work as a team
>>>
>>> do not forget who started the fighting: The WMF. The WMF announced to WMDE
>>> that
>>> the database-replication is going to end in the near future, what caused
>>> that
>>> WMDE stopped to support the Toolserver properly. The very goal with this
>>> was
>>> to let (Tool-)Labs be the only alternative.
>>> A fair approach would have been to create Labs as an alternative to the
>>> Toolserver, letting the users (new and old) decide which system they want
>>> to
>>> use. Toolserver and Labs could have existed in coexistence, exchanging
>>> knowledge, and maybe specially in different fields after a while. But that
>>> was
>>> not what happened. Instead the WMF decided because the are bigger, have
>>> more
>>> money, servers and personal, and control the replication-data, that they
>>> just
>>> could put the toolserver to an end – what didn't work as well as expected.
>>> And
>>> now we are sitting here with confused tool-a

Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[Aaron Halfaker]

Hey folks,

I usually steer clear of these sort of battles, but it looks like it's time
to state the obvious: *we need to work together better*.

We're wiki people, damn it.  We're the people[1] who figured out how to
build an encyclopedia through (effectively) an anonymous system when those
with less imagination were skeptical what it could even work at all.  Now,
we're fighting against ourselves about technology to support our wiki work
and it is only wasting time, energy and social capitol.

DaB, I don't follow toolserver-l as well as I should.  What can I do to
help make sure that the Toolserver cluster is well supplied *at least* until
labs meets 99.9% of tool developers needs.  Do I need to lobby the WMF?
 WMDE?

Ryan, I'm sure it was not out of some sort of malicious intent, but a large
number of toolserver users and especially DaB are getting a raw deal.  At
some point, someone seems to have suggested that WMF Labs ought to replace
the Toolserver.  This is painful because, while Labs is not yet ready for
us, the Toolserver is already being phased out.  It's not fair to just say,
"Come on over to Labs and help us."  I don't see how jumping ship before
the next one shows up is a good idea.  The majority of us are doing our
work as volunteers.  We can't just manifest extra maintainer hours in order
to spend developer time on Labs.  We're already spending more time dealing
with Toolserver issues than we normally would.

Finally, the Toolserver isn't just a resource.  It's our community.  A
community is far more valuable than technology.  If we don't preserve our
community, we'll all lose.  So please, when we're fighting each other, our
first thought should be how to not need to fight anymore.

So here we are.  Today was wasted arguing about who was wronged.  How do we
work together better tomorrow?

-Aaron


On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 9:05 AM, DaB.  wrote:

> Hello,
> At Thursday 02 May 2013 15:29:07 DaB. wrote:
> > I'm confused. I thought we were all here to support the readers, editors,
> > researchers and developers of the Wikimedia projects? If the toolserver
> is
> > empty because Labs is accomplishing the goal, isn't that a good thing?
> >
> > I've asked this before: why not help with Labs, rather than fighting
> > everyone? Let's work as a team
>
> do not forget who started the fighting: The WMF. The WMF announced to WMDE
> that
> the database-replication is going to end in the near future, what caused
> that
> WMDE stopped to support the Toolserver properly. The very goal with this
> was
> to let (Tool-)Labs be the only alternative.
> A fair approach would have been to create Labs as an alternative to the
> Toolserver, letting the users (new and old) decide which system they want
> to
> use. Toolserver and Labs could have existed in coexistence, exchanging
> knowledge, and maybe specially in different fields after a while. But that
> was
> not what happened. Instead the WMF decided because the are bigger, have
> more
> money, servers and personal, and control the replication-data, that they
> just
> could put the toolserver to an end – what didn't work as well as expected.
> And
> now we are sitting here with confused tool-authors, annoyed tool-users and
> a
> angry root.
> I didn't start the fight and I am not interested in teaming-up with a party
> which was not interested to build a team in the very beginning when it
> counted. Switching or helping with Labs would signal that I'm fine with all
> what the WMF did – and I'm not.
>
> Sincerely,
> DaB.
>
>
> --
> Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 0x2d3ee2d42b255885
>
> ___
> Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
> Posting guidelines for this list:
> https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
>
___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[DaB.]

Hello,
At Thursday 02 May 2013 15:29:07 DaB. wrote:
> I'm confused. I thought we were all here to support the readers, editors,
> researchers and developers of the Wikimedia projects? If the toolserver is
> empty because Labs is accomplishing the goal, isn't that a good thing?
> 
> I've asked this before: why not help with Labs, rather than fighting
> everyone? Let's work as a team

do not forget who started the fighting: The WMF. The WMF announced to WMDE that 
the database-replication is going to end in the near future, what caused that 
WMDE stopped to support the Toolserver properly. The very goal with this was 
to let (Tool-)Labs be the only alternative.
A fair approach would have been to create Labs as an alternative to the 
Toolserver, letting the users (new and old) decide which system they want to 
use. Toolserver and Labs could have existed in coexistence, exchanging 
knowledge, and maybe specially in different fields after a while. But that was 
not what happened. Instead the WMF decided because the are bigger, have more 
money, servers and personal, and control the replication-data, that they just 
could put the toolserver to an end – what didn't work as well as expected. And 
now we are sitting here with confused tool-authors, annoyed tool-users and a 
angry root. 
I didn't start the fight and I am not interested in teaming-up with a party 
which was not interested to build a team in the very beginning when it 
counted. Switching or helping with Labs would signal that I'm fine with all 
what the WMF did – and I'm not.

Sincerely,
DaB.


-- 
Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 0x2d3ee2d42b255885


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[MZMcBride]

Platonides wrote:
>Even if "labs being ready" happens in 2018?
>"ready" will vary for each tool, but I foresee a process like this:
>
>1. labs provides all the resources needed for $TOOL
>2. $AUTHOR signs up in labs, gets added to the projects, etc.
>3. $AUTHOR tests (benchmarks) labs and finds it acceptable for $TOOL
>4. $AUTHOR learns all the labs-specific details.
>5. $AUTHOR allocates some time for installing $TOOL in labs
>6. Fix bugs in $TOOL when run in labs (aka. adapt $TOOL to labs)
>7. (Optional) Redirect toolserver/$TOOL to labs/$TOOL
>
>For the majority of tools, we haven't reached #1 yet.
>
>Once labs provides (almost) everything available at toolserver, you can
>start talking about when to stop supporting TS. But doing otherwise is
>premature.
>#2 is the only step that could take place before #1.
>
>Then there is the 'lazy factor' for #2-7, although it is also known as
>"too busy to fix this program which works ok in TS"
>Some people may skip #3, while others will want to be damn sure that it
>will work correctly.
>The time required by #4 can be reduced making labs very similar to
>toolserver.
>If labs environment for the programs is very different, such as needing
>to do the joins manually inside the program, that will increase #6 a lot.

Platonides: This was an absolutely wonderful e-mail. Thank you for putting
it together. :-)

In some ways, as others have noted, convincing people to switch to Labs
earlier would slowly reduce the Toolserver's load. Or instead of
convincing, forcing users who are currently using a disproportionately
high amount of resources for their tools.

But... I imagine most resource-intensive tools need database replication
up and running. Maybe by the end of this month? Fingers crossed.

MZMcBride



___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[Platonides]

On 01/05/13 21:53, DaB. wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight 
> together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs. 
> Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that 
> this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver 
> as 
> soon as possible.

It does look at times as if they wanted to remove the toolserver from
behind us, but it shouldn't be considered a fight.
In this situation, the interest for that new-über-replacement it's
completely normal. It doesn't mean that they love one more than the other.


> There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more 
> time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this 
> reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a 
> moment 
> of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.
> 
> Sincerely,
> DaB.

Even if "labs being ready" happens in 2018?
"ready" will vary for each tool, but I foresee a process like this:

1. labs provides all the resources needed for $TOOL
2. $AUTHOR signs up in labs, gets added to the projects, etc.
3. $AUTHOR tests (benchmarks) labs and finds it acceptable for $TOOL
4. $AUTHOR learns all the labs-specific details.
5. $AUTHOR allocates some time for installing $TOOL in labs
6. Fix bugs in $TOOL when run in labs (aka. adapt $TOOL to labs)
7. (Optional) Redirect toolserver/$TOOL to labs/$TOOL

For the majority of tools, we haven't reached #1 yet.

Once labs provides (almost) everything available at toolserver, you can
start talking about when to stop supporting TS. But doing otherwise is
premature.
#2 is the only step that could take place before #1.

Then there is the 'lazy factor' for #2-7, although it is also known as
"too busy to fix this program which works ok in TS"
Some people may skip #3, while others will want to be damn sure that it
will work correctly.
The time required by #4 can be reduced making labs very similar to
toolserver.
If labs environment for the programs is very different, such as needing
to do the joins manually inside the program, that will increase #6 a lot.


___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[Ryan Lane]

On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 12:53 PM, DaB.  wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
> together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs.
> Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that
> this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the
> toolserver as
> soon as possible.
> There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more
> time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For
> this
> reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a
> moment
> of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.
>
>
I'm confused. I thought we were all here to support the readers, editors,
researchers and developers of the Wikimedia projects? If the toolserver is
empty because Labs is accomplishing the goal, isn't that a good thing?

I've asked this before: why not help with Labs, rather than fighting
everyone? Let's work as a team and have a well supported, well funded
product that's run by all of us, with a larger scope that incorporates
infrastructure and development volunteers. We appreciate your work on the
Toolserver and would appreciate it in Labs as well.

- Ryan
___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[Liangent]

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Tim Landscheidt  wrote:
> (anonymous) wrote:
>
>>> until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
>>> together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs.
>>> Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that
>>> this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver 
>>> as
>>> soon as possible.
>>> There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more
>>> time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this
>>> reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a 
>>> moment
>>> of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.
>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> DaB.
>
>>> [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey
>
>> I wish there were an option saying "move when XXX and YYY features are
>> available and / or provided better on Labs".
>
> That's "move as soon as possible".

That's not exactly the same, especially when I add the clause
"provided better on Labs".

When some features I require are poorly available on Labs, it's still
"possible to move", but in the case that, if I decide to move, I have
to - for example - work around many issues on Labs, or have some more
difficult development work to do in order to utilize those features on
Labs, I'll still still stay on Toolserver.

-Liangent

> Tim
>
>
> ___
> Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
> Posting guidelines for this list: 
> https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[seth]

Hi!

On 01.05.2013 22:02, Liangent wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:53 AM, DaB.  wrote:
>> [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey
> 
> I wish there were an option saying "move when XXX and YYY features are
> available and / or provided better on Labs".

Actually I's say "Hey, it's a wiki!" or maybe I would just add your
preferred option, but unfortunately I still can't login at that wiki,
see 

Bye
seth

___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[Tim Landscheidt]

(anonymous) wrote:

>> until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
>> together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs.
>> Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that
>> this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver 
>> as
>> soon as possible.
>> There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more
>> time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this
>> reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a 
>> moment
>> of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.

>> Sincerely,
>> DaB.

>> [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey

> I wish there were an option saying "move when XXX and YYY features are
> available and / or provided better on Labs".

That's "move as soon as possible".

Tim


___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[Aaron Halfaker]

+1


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Liangent  wrote:

> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:53 AM, DaB.  wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
> > together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against
> Labs.
> > Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression
> that
> > this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the
> toolserver as
> > soon as possible.
> > There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much
> more
> > time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For
> this
> > reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a
> moment
> > of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > DaB.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey
>
> I wish there were an option saying "move when XXX and YYY features are
> available and / or provided better on Labs".
>
> -Liangent
>
> ___
> Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
> Posting guidelines for this list:
> https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

Re: [Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[Liangent]

On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:53 AM, DaB.  wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight
> together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs.
> Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that
> this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver as
> soon as possible.
> There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more
> time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this
> reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a moment
> of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.
>
> Sincerely,
> DaB.
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey

I wish there were an option saying "move when XXX and YYY features are
available and / or provided better on Labs".

-Liangent

___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette

[Toolserver-l] Survey: Moving to Labs

[DaB.]

Hello all,

until now I had the impression that we (you, the authors, and me) fight 
together against WMF and WMDE for keeping the Toolserver and against Labs. 
Some mails and discussion in the last days gives me now the impression that 
this was wrong and (at least some of) you are eager to leave the toolserver as 
soon as possible.
There is no point to beg the WMDE for new hardware and to invest much more 
time if 2 weeks after Labs is "ready" the toolserver will be empty. For this 
reason I created a survey at [1] that starts at midnight. Please take a moment 
of your time and place your nick in the section that suits you.

Sincerely,
DaB.

 
[1] https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Labs-Moving-Survey

-- 
Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 0x2d3ee2d42b255885


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
Posting guidelines for this list: 
https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette