On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 13, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> 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? > > No response to this? >
Response to that? No. I don't feel obligated to pile on to every argument. Sorry. If someone wants to go on a crusade against links on the openoffice.org website that go to advertisement-supported or other commercial webpages, then they will be quite busy. I'd recommend starting with our support page. Or our page of openoffice consultants. Or our "distribution" network page of those selling OpenOffice CD's for a mere "handling charge". If you want to purify with fire, then go ahead. Personally I'm fine with that as a business model, and I'm glad that companies with a working business model are contributing to the project. So long as we're not implying Apache endorsement of 3rd parties, this should be fine. >>> 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. > > Notice was given on April 6 that you were about to apply patches. There were > comments from Marcus before that on Roberto's thread where he didn't think it > would work. I don't think that there was consensus on the web changes. Are > you saying the 4 days started with Roberto's announcement? > And where do you think the patches came from? They were posted earlier in BZ, etc. The request for a test went back further, with no objections. And the discussion with SF and Infra, also on ooo-dev, about them handling some of the download traffic, went back even further, also was without objections. I'm sorry you didn't put all the pieces together. But those actually doing the work seemed to be OK with the pace. >>> 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. > > I think it was unfair of Joe to take Peter's comments as kicking sand in > people's face. Maybe he felt sand being kicked in his face. Peter has been > working on OOo mirrors for how long? > > Regards, > Dave > >> >>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >
