[volunteers] [svlug] Linux to Politics ratio

Lisa svlug at flygirl.com
Sat Dec 1 20:55:09 PST 2007


(First off, Daniel... since it's so hard to read emotion (or LACK
of emotion) properly in emails, know that I have no anger toward
you as I wrote this.)

On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 08:26:18PM -0800, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:

> No, because while the new website would not be a souped-up
> reinstallation of the old website setup, the mailing list
> stuff would be pretty much that at first and is in more
> immediate need of migration than the website. Once the Linode
> host takes over in exactly the capacity in which the current
> host is serving, the current host may be repurposed for a time
> as the new home of the website, and the multiple-basket
> scenario you're preferring could still happen. Would this
> still be consistent with the agreement you negotiated?

No... they were told it would be the main website within a MONTH
or two of that meeting --- the extra space/memory was granted
for *precisely* that reason.

So, as far as saving my word, forget it, that damage is done. It
sounds like Rick has fairly successfully convinced them that it
was not my fault, though, so I'm not trying to improve that.

I guess it's just the feeling of betrayal that *I* had that was
the problem --- but I've been letting that go... except when I
am reminded of it and feel a need to speak up --- especially
when it's claimed, in one form or another, that it's my own
fault.

>> That would be nice, but I think 1/2 is better than nothing. 
>> Wouldn't it make sense to get some other opinions on this?
> 
> And two halves are better than one.

That was my point.
 
>> What I recall is that the answer always was, in full
>> (paraphrased): Wait for the wiki... it should be REAL soon now.
> 
> AIUI, its flakiness is almost exclusively a function of the
> way it's being used and the way it was set up. I was one of
> the people who chanted the wiki mantra, but always in the
> context of hearing "there's nothing the Linode host can do
> beyond DNS." This is yet another consequence of not airing out
> the LUG's "dirty laundry" in public, a necessary evil.
> Obviously, not ALL the time already spent is salvageable, but
> we have some unique opportunities now for maximizing how much
> of it really can be salvaged. The details can be hashed out
> right here on this list.

(1) Not what I heard, I heard that the drive(s) are flakey and
that, yes, there might be some problems with configuration but
with good equipment it should work as it is --- albeit, perhaps,
hard to maintain/update.

(2) And, yes, as the VM was it couldn't do much more than DNS. 
Which is why (sorry if I sound like a broken record) we agreed
that if I could get the extra memory in exchange for the promise
to do so, it would become our primary webserver as soon as we
could reasonably move things over.
 
>> I think that, while that may be an admirable goal, getting our
>> website onto a more reliable machine as opposed to a flakey
>> machine, by someone who had already done 90% of the work, was
>> not worth NOT doing just because it isn't "everything we want."
> 
> Of course moving the website alone is not worth not doing, but
> not taking care to make things not need REdoing is how the
> current server ended up in such a sorry state presently.

Nothing I did to move it over (as I have already done 90% of the
work more than 6 months ago) couldn't be EASILY replaced when we
"do it right" and, as I said, it's already done (over 90%). 
Nothing that is DONE would interfere with anything that WOULD be
done --- if it ever gets done.

>> In that case, as Rick has mentioned many times, they don't even
>> NEED to be on the same machine.  And, as Mark has mentioned
>> several times (a while ago), it'd be nice if the main site were
>> on a very reliable machine and then we could do wiki-type stuff
>> on an experimental machine -- such as the VM host that you seem
>> to love the thought of so much.  I always liked that idea, but
>> it was always rejected.
> 
> I don't know exactly who rejected that, but remember: Ideas
> never die.

No, but often the people behind them lose their motivation
and/or go away --- especially when they have no personal stake
in it.

>> The mailing list does not have to move.  I am not an expert on
>> mailing lists.  If that's a *requirement* of the move (which, as
>> I said, doesn't make sense to me --- I'd rather NOT have "all
>> our eggs in one basket") then I guess we stay on the machine
>> that most experts in our group would not be surprised to see DIE
>> totally any day now.  *shrug*
> 
> As I said above, movement of the mailing list being a
> requirement of the move doesn't need to require moving the
> website egg into the same basket at the same time permanently.
> If that's too big a mouthful to parse, see above[, Rick].

Understood and agreed except for two reasons:

(1) Even with the upgraded memory and space, I have been told
that it is insufficent to decently handle the mailing list and
spamassassin at the level that we would need it

(2) Someone ELSE would need to move it as I am not a mailman
expert.  If someone else is willing to do it (and if I am wrong
about point #1), I'd say "go for it."

> I'd like to take this opportunity to strongly urge you to
> seriously consider possibly joining Ed and Warren as a VP
> candidate yourself.

As involved as I may like to be with SVLUG, it's difficult for
me to make committments and be sure of honoring them (which is,
as I said, very important to me --- when I make them, I honor
them) because I am a single mom and can't have any reasonable
level of assurance that I might not have to miss a meeting of
one sort or another.

On the other hand, doing stuff from home (via ssh and such) is
much more "committable" as I can do that when my daughter is
asleep in the next room. :-)

Lisa




More information about the volunteers mailing list