Re: [hackers] node hosting
Yeah, it is a soft money issue. Well you've got a good idea that I will go check on (if one contributer payed for hosting out of pocket as a campaign contribution). But i think if this thing works hosting will cost a bit more than $2K a month and things will get messy. $2000 is not enough to pay for this thing I think I as well really do want to do the node hoster, but it is really looking like the FEC is standing in the way. But in some respects this is a good thing. It forces us to make this a true grassroots engineering effort and to really distrbute the network. And plus, if ISPs step forward (almost garunteed) to host / install the nodes then we are halfway there to a node hoster. -Zack On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, CMR wrote: Is this a soft money issue? If so, is it if I spent more than 2000? or the hackers4dean project spent that? If it's just me, than we'd be fine becuse I've only given dean $150 so far; I could cover setup and a bunch of months for only a couple hundred more; anyway, it was just a thought. If it won't float, it won't float. CMR --enter gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here-- - Original Message - From: zachary rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CMR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [hackers] node hosting CMR - we and the campaign would be liable if you did this. If you spend more than $2000 towards this including your contributions so far then they would loose a suit if someone filed one. The only way something like this is if a truly independant orginization (non profit) offered this free serviced to ANYONE. But in this case your donation is considered a campaign contribution and thus falls under the FEC rules -Zack On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, CMR wrote: - Node hosting as we had planned looks to be out. We cannot raise our own money - if we became a PAC we couldnt coordinate at all with HQ, we would become useless. They cannot pay for the hosting unless the sites became official. However, it is expected that there will be ISP's willing to offer to host and help set up the tools for communities who want to use them (for a price of course). This would get us halfway there (if the ISP's set up the scripts and we just had to teach them how to admin it). More on the later Well, I remain ready to kick down for a big chunck of linux hosting space, setup fees plus the first few months (say, till we know if Dean will be a real phenom or a shooting star - or by super-tuesday); I want to put up my own e-zine anyway so it wouldn't cost much more to get a boodie-load of space and data transfer; wouldn't need much in the way of tools since we have so many mega-geeks involved; just need SOLID and FAST tech support to ensure absolute minimal down time. I don't think there'd be any legal issues, I'd just be donating space for a cause, period; my dime, nobody's else's bidness. It's pretty affordable; check this out for instance; these guys are top rated on tophostreviews.com: http://www.ixwebhosting.com/pg.info.dspProductPlatinumPlan/IXWEBSESSION/e2a6 b7bd3de509bd850dbf3ae9955c32 The Platinum linux plan might work, at least for a start; if not, we could get somebody on the phone and see if we could get a customized deal for a little more jack a month; if not thes guys, somebody with a good rep would be willing deal I'm sure; Anyway, look it over then think it over...
Re: [hackers] node hosting
Why not welcome all campaigns to use the tools: Presidential, congressional, state, etc.? Then we can gold plate the damn thing and still be legal. Here's how I see it (from http://www.blaserco.com/blogs ): A4D is being built by volunteers using an open source language (PHP) to assemble software components (like Drupal, MySQL, RSS, etc.) to build the toolkit. And their work is open source, so it's freely available for others to re-use and improve by returning their improvements to the code base. Sure, the code will be papered with advisories that it was developed for the Dean campaign beta usersnotices that must be left in the codebut all candidates of all stripes are welcome to benefit from this extraordinary body of work. If we offer it publicly and sincerely, it's just another open source tool, which is required of us by the GPL anyway. Why be afraid of an overwhelming grassroots movement of fundamentalist Internet mavens (is there such a thing?). We should embrace all grassroots organizing that raises the collective dialogue, since that exposes our most candid thinking. Again, the GPL or any license requires us to re-publish the code, and we assume some republicans/Kerryites will get the code by becoming nodes. We're sharing it anyway, so if we say we're sharing it, the FEC issues disappear, IMHO. __ On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, at 11:02 AM, CMR wrote: Yeah, it is a soft money issue. Well you've got a good idea that I will go check on (if one contributer payed for hosting out of pocket as a campaign contribution). But i think if this thing works hosting will cost a bit more than $2K a month and things will get messy. $2000 is not enough to pay for this thing I think Got it; and that's all fine by me (although, if it's just linux hosting, it's amazing what $2000, even $200, will buy...). But at least part of my idea on this was, what if (god forbid) Dean flails? As I've said a couple times before, this project is potentially much bigger than one cause because it's really all about the future of online networking/organizing. I'd hate to see things disintergrate if Dean goes south, say, when the primaries go south. So having the hosting space might have given us an tangible turf where the organization's code and such could be sustained and a central site could operate if need be. But, even in this scenario, some hosting space could be always obtained at that junture and we all could (and will I imagine) talk about what, if anything, is next. So it's all good. (Besides, DEAN'S GONNA KICK BOODIE!!!) Cheers CMR --enter gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here--
RE: [hackers] node hosting
Clarification needed: we're looking at the hosting options, and if I understand correctly, a4d is moving but the node concept is stalled and may generate a project that is not focused on one specific candidate or org. Is that correct? I think we need to clarify the hosting requirements for the nodeless a4d to determine what Polycot can do, can we revisit that? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Joshua Koenig Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 12:19 PM To: zachary rosen Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hackers] node hosting Yes - I am all for it. The only concern is: if there is to strong a connection / correlation between the Dean campaign and this non profit service then the campaign is liable. Two points: 1) IMHO this should not be a non-profit venture. This is different from the idea of an academic project which will further the general goals of nodal/online politics. It needs to be non-partisan, but it's essentially a fee-for-service company, and that's all it should be. It's blogspot for a modified version of drupal. There are also strategic reasons for this (see my previous email). 2) As long as the class and quality of service offered is neutral, then it doesn't matter who sets it up. The proof is in the pudding, not in the pedigree. This would mean a stock turnkey install would not include a partisan drupal theme, but we could offer a theme gallery which users would be free to contribute to. cheers -josh
Re: [hackers] node hosting
Sounds good to me, Howard. Though you don't need anyone's blessing. ;) Also, in response to Jim's question, the problem isn't with individual people who want to set up their own h4d-modified Drupal. Our original plan included having a powerful turnkey hosting service which dean groups who don't have techies of their own could make use of in setting up their sites. This large-scale turnkey service is the only part of the plan that potentially runs afoul of the FEC. Groups and individuals using whatever space they have to do their own Dean Site hosting is not going to be a problem. cheers -josh I would like to propose this again ... How about CMR, Aldon and I work on finding out what options we have for hosting ... not to commit to anything, but to have our options fully known when the time comes ... We know the general FEC rules, and I have already made a very specific inquiry to find out how we can handle ongoing expenses within the rules ... this is not an isolated issue just for hosting ... it has already come up out here as we are trying to establish a volunteer phone center ... it must come up all the time in other campaigns and there has to be a banking mechanism that is legal ... we will get to the bottom of it ... Anyway, if the three of us get busy with this we can go faster, and leave the coders to their work until we have something substantial to discuss ... Howard2 Howard Vicini computer graphics, prepress, animation web design San Francisco Dean url www.bayarea4dean.com personal url www.vicini.net email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM howardvicini AIM IM howardvicini voice 415-522-1555 - Original Message - From: CMR [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 7:04 AM Subject: Re: [hackers] node hosting - Node hosting as we had planned looks to be out. We cannot raise our own money - if we became a PAC we couldnt coordinate at all with HQ, we would become useless. They cannot pay for the hosting unless the sites became official. However, it is expected that there will be ISP's willing to offer to host and help set up the tools for communities who want to use them (for a price of course). This would get us halfway there (if the ISP's set up the scripts and we just had to teach them how to admin it). More on the later Well, I remain ready to kick down for a big chunck of linux hosting space, setup fees plus the first few months (say, till we know if Dean will be a real phenom or a shooting star - or by super-tuesday); I want to put up my own e-zine anyway so it wouldn't cost much more to get a boodie-load of space and data transfer; wouldn't need much in the way of tools since we have so many mega-geeks involved; just need SOLID and FAST tech support to ensure absolute minimal down time. I don't think there'd be any legal issues, I'd just be donating space for a cause, period; my dime, nobody's else's bidness. It's pretty affordable; check this out for instance; these guys are top rated on tophostreviews.com: http://www.ixwebhosting.com/pg.info.dspProductPlatinumPlan/ IXWEBSESSION/e2a6 b7bd3de509bd850dbf3ae9955c32 The Platinum linux plan might work, at least for a start; if not, we could get somebody on the phone and see if we could get a customized deal for a little more jack a month; if not thes guys, somebody with a good rep would be willing deal I'm sure; Anyway, look it over then think it over... Politics is the art of controlling your environment. Participate! Elect Howard Dean President in 2004! http://www.outlandishjosh.com/politics/dean/
RE: [hackers] node hosting
There are two primary different hosting questions, as I see it: (1) Where will we send people to host their own Dean Community Sites. Our current position on this is that we do not send them anywhere. We leave it up to the volunteer administrators to recommend hosting services, with some suggested guidelines. The more involved we get in the hosting decisions of the sites, the fuzzier the line between the campaign and the unofficial community sites. Furthermore, we don't want vendors fighting and calling the campaign all the time to be on the recommended list. (2) Where we host the Visible Volunteer Network. This is a DFA decision -- would love suggestions but likely use Rackspace or something, once our requirements are clear. I've asked that we have server space by this weekend, but we should at least have funding for it by that point. Does that make sense? Zephyr How does everyone feel about an IRC meeting specific to the hosting issues so that everyone can catch up on what everyone else is doing ... Until I see a very specific spec sheet, I am very nervous about the outcome of anyone's efforts, including my own ... This is such an important project, for this Presidential election and future elections, in general, that I don't think anything should be done off the cuff ... *Financing issues are one thing, of course ... we will eventually get clear guidelines from the campaign staff ... and 'banking' arrangements for ongoing expenses that are within the FEC rules ... these are standard concerns that will get worked out ... *Technical specs seem to pretty well defined now, but I have not seen an approved, written spec sheet ... anyone have something? *I believe that we can gain valuable insight on traffic and volume issues by sampling current Dean websites that have been online for a while in order to develop realistic guidelines that will be imprecise, but better than a guess, at least ... But there are also other requirements that we must define before selecting any host: -is the host's building secure from intrusion ... what level of security do they maintain? -does it have fire suppression... what type of structure? -does the host have emergency, internal power generation capabilities? -what records does the host make available concerning its uptime? -how do current customers rate the host? -what is the ownership's Party affiliation? And, a spec sheet covering all of these requirements should be developed before any 'shopping' for a host is done, even an internal one ... it is a standard corporate procedure that should be followed, I believe, for the obvious reasons ... and everything should be done in written, contract form ... thoughts? Howard Vicini computer graphics, prepress, animation web design San Francisco Dean url www.bayarea4dean.com personal url www.vicini.net email [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo IM howardvicini AIM IM howardvicini voice 415-522-1555 - Original Message - From: Jon Lebkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Howard Vicini [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 1:08 PM Subject: RE: [hackers] node hosting How about CMR, Aldon and I work on finding out what options we have for hosting ... not to commit to anything, but to have our options fully known when the time comes ... We were already working on that, but feel free to jump in. Our original thought was to host pro bono but when Jeff saw the requirements, he was a little concerned about the potential bandwidth and other technical issues. We were researching to see what other options exist to fit the requirements. Jeff is at [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you want to contact him directly (but I think he's on the list, as [EMAIL PROTECTED]). ~ jon
RE: [hackers] node hosting
Are there some legal resources out there (part of the h4d group) to run with this issue? It is a track that can run parallel to other sub-projects. Maybe the campaign can point volunteer legal help this way?
RE: [hackers] node hosting
Should this go into the Wikki? Should we set up a Wikki page with lists current possible hosting sites? Aldon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of jim sloan Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 8:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [hackers] node hosting I said it was taking too much energy not wasting it - my point was not to drop it. I suggest that a working group should investigate and define the legal parameters that would apply to any group that would want to provide web presence to a grass roots political campaign. In turn that information can be used by the h4d group to advise groups that want to host it themselves and it will also define how h4d could offer a hosting service for groups that need to leap that technical hurdle with some help. regards jim - Original Message - From: CMR [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [hackers] node hosting I've been following this for most of today and I am concerned that this bifurcation is taking too much energy. What I think needs to happen is that the legal issues need to be spelled out for anyone that would want to host a site (regardless of candidate). This information can be used by any interested party to host whatever they want. I don't think that hosting is a problem for the h4d project. But if we have the information that relates to the above then we can help the grass root nodes avoid problems. It would then assist the h4d group in answering these questions from parties interested in using the h4d branded Drupal. If I'm correct, the issue of our hosting turn key solutions was never settled one way or another. Zach revived that topic for discussion with his message this AM. This list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is, at least in part, for discussing issues of project wide scope, both present and future, and discussing project mission. Also, if I am correct, the developers list was created for immediate development issues just so those who didn't want to receive non-directly development related issue related posts don't have to. Whether or not the turn key idea is a waste of energy or not, my offer was to help out if the eventual consensus was that we wanted to offer that feature. I'm fine with it if we decide against that, but I think we ought to be allowed to discuss the merits of the idea, if any, in order to reach that consensus. Thanks CMR --enter gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here--
RE: [hackers] node hosting
Excellent start to a FAQ that should be hosed at the h4d site and then packaged with the installation tarball. Heh... hope you meant 'hosted'... :)
Re: [hackers] node hosting
I've been following this for most of today and I am concerned that this bifurcation is taking too much energy. What I think needs to happen is that the legal issues need to be spelled out for anyone that would want to host a site (regardless of candidate). This information can be used by any interested party to host whatever they want. I don't think that hosting is a problem for the h4d project. But if we have the information that relates to the above then we can help the grass root nodes avoid problems. It would then assist the h4d group in answering these questions from parties interested in using the h4d branded Drupal. If I'm correct, the issue of our hosting turn key solutions was never settled one way or another. Zach revived that topic for discussion with his message this AM. This list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is, at least in part, for discussing issues of project wide scope, both present and future, and discussing project mission. Also, if I am correct, the developers list was created for immediate development issues just so those who didn't want to receive non-directly development related issue related posts don't have to. Whether or not the turn key idea is a waste of energy or not, my offer was to help out if the eventual consensus was that we wanted to offer that feature. I'm fine with it if we decide against that, but I think we ought to be allowed to discuss the merits of the idea, if any, in order to reach that consensus. Thanks CMR --enter gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here--
