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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:04 PM, drew <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> 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. > >> > > > > > > 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. >
