On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 19:39 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > Hi Drew; > > --- Gio 12/4/12, drew <[email protected]> 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. 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. > 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. > > 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. > >
