Not what I need atm drew. I'm looking for the names/addresses of people associated with this PPMC who manage the network- ie the local analog of Henk. Peter is one guy, are there any others?
>________________________________ > From: drew jensen <[email protected]> >To: Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> >Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:43 PM >Subject: Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution? > >On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 11:11 -0700, Joe Schaefer wrote: >> FTR, I just got thru discussing these issues with >> Henk Penning, our Apache mirror guy. While he's >> tried to reach out to Peter without success recently, >> he'd like to get in contact with whoever currently >> is managing the mirrorbrain mirrors because those >> mirror operators are in the dark about what our plans >> are, and maintaining good relations with mirror operators >> is essential for all concerned. Please provide me >> with a list of mirror network managers for the old >> system so I can pass it along to Henk for followup. > >Hi, > >I have the list of addresses, culled from the website, which I used for >the initial mailing - in a spreadsheet, with notes as to which addresses >bounced and which responded. > >Will email that directly to you and CC Henk. > >//drew > >> >> >> Infra's position is currently that, for the upcoming >> release ONLY, continuing to use the legacy mirrorbrain >> system in conjunction with ASF mirrors and SF downloads >> is A-OK. However it is painfully obvious that maintaining >> two different mirror networks causes trouble for everyone, >> so we will ask that this PPMC take steps to phase out >> the mirrorbrain network for all subsequent releases, leaving >> just ASF mirrors and SF downloads. At that point we will >> be better positioned to avoid duplication of download >> resources and hopefully have incorporated many of the old >> mirrors into the ASF mirror network. >> >> >> Note: while you are required to use ASF mirrors, your use >> of SF download services is contingent on satisfactory performance >> and whatever criterion you consider essential- IOW its up to you >> whether you want to keep using it or not. All SF has asked of >> us is timely notification so they can cancel whatever supporting >> arrangements they have made to not incur needless costs, something >> I consider eminently fair and reasonable. >> >> >> HTH >> >> >> >> >________________________________ >> > From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >> >To: [email protected] >> >Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:20 PM >> >Subject: Re: Ditching our mirror system for an inferior solution? >> > >> >On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:58 PM, drew <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 14:42 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote: >> >>> On 13 April 2012 14:00, drew <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> > On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 05:38 -0700, 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 my recollection the discussion earlier always started from the >> >>> > premise that Apache mirrors would take over, I thought because that was >> >>> > the policy, only apache mirrors. >> >>> >> >>> Apache mirrors are ones sanctioned and coordinated by the ASF infra >> >>> team. They are not ones that the ASF manage. SF are working directly >> >>> with ASF Infra so that they become an official ASF mirror, the fact >> >>> that they are providing much more than a single mirror site changes >> >>> nothing. >> >>> >> >>> Any organisation whether they were part of the previous mirrorbrain >> >>> service or not is free to work with ASF Infra to become a part of the >> >>> ASF mirror system. >> >>> >> >>> > I asked when (how) it was determined that the Mirrorbrain service was >> >>> > broken and had to be replaced? >> >>> >> >>> Nobody said it was broken. What was said is that ASF Infra are not >> >>> willing or able to support two distinct mirror systems so either >> >>> people step up and move (and support) mirrorbrain at the ASF or the >> >>> ASF Infra team step up and make it work. ASF Infra is making it work, >> >>> using the resources being offered, including those from SF. Actions >> >>> speak louder than words. >> >>> >> >>> I'm sure ASF Infra will continue accept offers of long term support >> >>> and assistance from any third party willing and able. >> >>> >> >>> > I pointed out that it had never stopped serving up files, that TTBOMK >> >>> > the mirror operators had never notified this project that they would no >> >>> > longer work with the project. >> >>> >> >>> True, and the ASF Infra team asked the PPMC to reach our to those >> >>> operators and ask them if they wanted to continue as part of the ASF >> >>> mirror system. Infra are not dumping the old network, they are >> >>> augmenting it with the existing ASF mirror and newcomers. Things look >> >>> different when you look from a different angle. >> >>> >> >> Hi Ross >> >> >> >> Alright, so it is just a matter of existing policy, which is to say that >> >> as part of matriculation into Apache the project relinquishes control of >> >> the distribution process from the project proper to the foundation, >> >> specifically the Infrastructure team, no exceptions. >> >> >> >> In the case of the existing mirrorbrain network then individual mirrors >> >> must conform to the existing requirements for becoming an official >> >> Apache mirror. >> >> >> >> In this case then the fact that the individual mirrorbrain server >> >> operators have not said they would stop supporting the project is of no >> >> consideration, rather what was needed, or lacking, is an active >> >> declaration of support via execution of the required steps needed to be >> >> recognized as official Apache mirrors, unless as is the case for some >> >> they already are such. >> >> >> >> Which is where I get a bit confused as to the reality of the situation >> >> on the ground, at this moment. >> >> >> >> When it is said that the mirrorbrain network will also be used for >> >> distribution what is meant is those servers in the current network which >> >> have become, or were already, Apache mirrors, but not the full >> >> contingent of servers? I believe that is accurate, but as I say I'm not >> >> really positive this is the case. >> >> >> >> So the facts on the ground are, that there has not been a large number >> >> of mirrorbrain operators executing these steps and therefore the project >> >> is faced with the necessity of augmenting the system by including the SF >> >> services. >> >> >> >> As to Peter then, it is in no way impugning the quality of all the hard >> >> work that he and others have contributed over the years, or the ability >> >> to continue to deliver the 'goods' (even patches), it is simply a >> >> consequence of the move to Apache and pre-existing foundation policy. >> >> >> >> It is just an unfortunate consequence that in this specific case one of >> >> the better executed, and well functioning, aspects of the community >> >> efforts from the old project falls afoul of the requirements in the >> >> projects in it's new home. >> >> >> > >> > >> >Drew, consider our recent OOo track record of community-supported >> >infrastructure: >> > >> >1) Extensions and Templates? It gradually fell apart, over a period >> >of months, a horrible user experience, embarrassing, with zero >> >volunteers from the community able or willing to fix it, before >> >SourgeForge volunteered to host it. (Apache Infra also volunteered to >> >help, and certainly could have done it as well. Point is, the AOO PMC >> >failed to solve this problem) >> > >> >2) phpBB Forums? No admin, no maintenance. It is one critical bug >> >away from falling over, or one XSS away from being shut down. >> > >> >3) Pootle? No one in the project ever stepped forward to set this up. >> >We were fortunate that Apache Infra eventually did this and saved our >> >asses. >> > >> >So we're not exactly showing our strength when we talk about the >> >community's ability to maintain complex infrastructure. Maybe these >> >all worked before. Maybe there was some Sun/Oracle staff helping? I >> >don't know. >> > >> >In any case, I don't think, given this recent track record, it is very >> >wise to put all of our eggs in one basket and rely entirely on >> >MirrorBrain for our downloads. Some diversity and redundancy is a good >> >thing, both for peak demand, as well as insurance against the same >> >things happening to our downloads as happened to Extensions, Templates >> >and forums. >> > >> >-Rob >> > >> >> //drew >> >> >> > >> > >> > > > > > >
