On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Actually, 4 days advance notice of the test was given on this list. No one raised questions. This was not JFDI. > Sand can be kicked in more than one direction. > Indeed. But piling on after the fact, instead of raising issues at the time things are proposed, is really, really sad. > 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 <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> 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 <[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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >
