On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:57 AM Michael Palimaka <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/8/19 7:21 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > In any case, since many people *do* rely on it, maybe we should declare > it > > official? [+] > > > > And, if that's OK with both of you, move it onto infra hardware? > > > > Happy to sponsor both for the next council meeting agenda. > > > > > > [+] At some point the one remaining whiner doesnt count anymore. > > > > In the past, infra has been understandably hesitant to take on new > services due to staffing issues. > > Additionally, I understand that the current infra design does not easily > allow granular access control, preventing non-infra members from easily > performing maintenance on individual services. > > Has this situation changed? I doubt infra want to take responsibility > for the bot, and I don't fancy the hassle of trying to find people to > poke things on my behalf. > Things have not changed. We don't need to run the bot, we just need some clearer contact info for it IMHO. I don't think the reliability of the bot is really that different from official infra services, but it was unclear who owned it and so there was confusion; and I think the confusion is the key thing we are looking to resolve here. -A
