| faidon added a comment. |
Hi there! I saw @Ladsgroup's email to the ops list (thanks for bringing that to our attention!), so I'll respond to some of the questions he raised there -- sorry if it sounds a bit incoherent with regards to the context above :)
From an infrastructure point-of-view, hosting this microsite is definitely doable and from the looks of it, pretty easy too. If you folks think that it would better serve our movement and/or make your lives easier, we're up for it.
That said, all of my comments below are from a technical/infrastructure point-of-view. There may be other requirements or consequences to the WMF hosting this site, so I'd have to check with Legal about them (I can do so if/when you decide you want to actually proceed with it). For example, there may be a requirement to have a footer that mentions the Foundation's privacy policy.
Where it'd be hosted in our infrastructure doesn't matter much at this point I think, but it'll probably something like krypton or bromine. We'd likely want it to be fronted by our traffic infrastructure, although there are some complications around that (mainly due to the fact that it's not a *.wikimedia.org, so our regular wildcard HTTPS certificate wouldn't cover it), so we may want to do that as a second step at some later point. It'd be useful to know the order of magnitude of traffic this site receives.
Amir inquired about DNS as well; for that, we'd like the Foundation to own (and pay for) the domain, as well as the domain being served by our nameservers (ns0/1/2.wikimedia.org). This isn't a no exception rule, but a very strong preference. We've hosted sites without operating the DNS, or operating the DNS for domains the Foundation didn't own, and we probably still do that in some cases, but it has always been messy, especially over the years (think of cases we want to e.g. make a change to our NS or MX records and and we need to find whoever is responsible for N number of domains across multiple organizations and staff that may have turned around and lost context).
Finally, Amir asked about whether a security review would be needed, considering this is a static site. It's a bordeline case but there may be bugs for example lying in e.g. client-side code (such as XSS), so it's probably not a bad idea to pass it through a security review regardless? Since it's small and frontend-only, It'll be probably be super quick and won't introduce any delays to this move :)
Let me know if/when you'd like to proceed and then we can sort out the remaining questions on our side. In that case, feel free to tag this or another task with #operations :)
Cc: faidon, Ladsgroup, Ivanhercaz, Addshore, Jonas, JeroenDeDauw, thiemowmde, hoo, JanZerebecki, Aklapper, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, Izno, Wikidata-bugs, aude, Mbch331
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
