On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:10:13AM +0200, Platonides wrote: > On 25/09/12 00:51, DaB. wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > in these days WMDE (the chapter that finance the toolserver) is discussing > > the > > budget for the next year (2013); you can find it at [1]. At the moment > > there is > > no money for new toolserver-hardware in this budget and the CEO Pavel > > Richter > > is unwilling to change this ([2] in german) – because he fears that there > > will > > be a Wikilabs in 2014. It is not possible for me to run the toolserver for > > another year with the current hardware – you all know why. For this reason > > I > > will request a change of the budget at the general meeting at November, so > > there will be a vote about. If this vote should fail (and we get no money > > for > > new hardware), I am going to retire from my job as root at 30. December > > 2012. > > I'm not longer able to tolerant the behavior of the german chapter and the > > WMF > > in matter of the toolserver; I do this for free and for fun, and it is not > > longer fun. > > > > Sincerely, > > DaB. > > > So, out of fear that there may be a better alternative in two years > time, he decides to stop supporting it now? > > I know labs, and I'm not sure it will really be a better alternative. > Currently, it isn't. The toolserver is much more reliable and flexible. > I don't think labs will "win" in the near future, either. Although it > might change in two years. Specially if no attention is payed to the > toolserver for that time. > > I see two big problems: > 1) If labs really becomes the "perfect tool hosting" in 2014, What > happens before we reach that? "Yes, your tool doesn't work, migrate to > labs next year" > > 2) We risk ending up with no good alternative at that time. labs is > still not good enough, toolserver has degraded so much it's unusable. > > > > Not to mention the migration cost that would need to be payed by tool > authors if forced to move. Although perhaps he doesn't care.
I think we should help DaB to make a case why toolserver is important. We should list the projects depending on toolserver and how, and all the other things that are important. What I can quickly think of: - Wiki Loves Monuments: All the tooling around this really need toolserver. - Commons: commons has a lot of toolserver tools more or less integrated in the interface, and there are supporttools running. - GLAM: a lot of glam-related work is done on toolservers - small tools for wiki support: all the bots archiving talkpages, create administrative pages automatically etc, etc ... - steward support: There are a lot of tools (also used generally) that really make cross-wiki abuse detection and other stewardwork much easier. With a document like that we can make a stronger case for WMDE to reserve budget, or have them apply for a separate grant to the foundation. Regards, Andre > > P.S: If you are in a board of a chapter that gives money to WMDE for the > > toolserver: Make sure that it will be spend for hardware. > > > > [1] > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Deutschland/2013_annual_plan_draft/en > > [2] > > meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Deutschland/2013_annual_plan_draft/de#Toolserver > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Toolserver-l mailing list ([email protected]) > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l > > Posting guidelines for this list: > > https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette > > > _______________________________________________ > Toolserver-l mailing list ([email protected]) > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l > Posting guidelines for this list: > https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette > _______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list ([email protected]) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
