XSF logo XSF Discussion - 2011-12-14


  1. luca tagliaferri has left
  2. jef has joined
  3. jef has left
  4. koski has joined
  5. koski has left
  6. Neustradamus has joined
  7. luca tagliaferri has joined
  8. Kev has joined
  9. luca tagliaferri has left
  10. luca tagliaferri has joined
  11. Neustradamus has joined
  12. dwd has joined
  13. stpeter has joined
  14. dwd A little less than half an hour to go.
  15. stpeter indeed
  16. stpeter is on a conference call so not really paying attention here at the moment
  17. Florian has joined
  18. lurker11542 has joined
  19. lurker11542 stpeter tests from speeqe.com
  20. stpeter well, that works, but it seems that Chris can't access speeqe.com either
  21. dwd Right.
  22. stpeter text to speech? ;-)
  23. dwd The only thing I wondered was whether we could setup a 1-1 => MUC relay fast enough.
  24. bear is slow this morning
  25. bear what do you mean by 1-1
  26. bear ?
  27. stpeter tries to use the gmail web interface for muc and fails utterly
  28. dwd bear, One to one chat.
  29. bear ah
  30. bear thought that was it but the => MUC part was making my post-sick brain all wonky
  31. dwd So, 8 minutes to go and we have 3/5 board folk and one apology.
  32. Florian 16:30 meeting?
  33. dwd Florian, Yep.
  34. dwd http://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board#Proposed_Agenda
  35. dwd (For those wot 'ave forgot)
  36. Florian do we have an etherpad?
  37. dwd Florian, Do we want one?
  38. Florian it's quite nice to get the minutes ready
  39. bear considers that to be the note takers option
  40. dwd Florian, You realise you're getting dangerously close to offering to do the minutes this week?
  41. Florian shuts up
  42. Florian I killed our core server this morning
  43. stpeter http://typewith.me/xsf
  44. stpeter that's our permanent room
  45. Florian by running aptitude without realizing it was removing nearly all packages
  46. bear ouch
  47. Ashley has joined
  48. dwd Yay, it's Ashley!
  49. dwd So we are complete, modulo Chris's apology.
  50. bear I did that once with RHEL 6 - removed the core package that allows yum to update itself
  51. Florian heh
  52. Ashley yay!
  53. stpeter we need a muc to chat bot
  54. stpeter that way we could patch people in
  55. dwd Indeed.
  56. dwd So, I declare us in session.
  57. stpeter http://code.matthewwild.co.uk/riddim/ here I come :)
  58. dwd So, first item is Athena - do we have sufficient item folk to offer advice on what they'd like to do?
  59. dwd Kev, stpeter - I believe this is your bag. What are our options for Athena, and what needs to happen as a priority?
  60. Florian puts Flosoft.biz hat on
  61. dwd looks meaningfully across the office at Kev, in the hope he'll reply.
  62. Florian we can offer an upgrade to ds0039 (i.e. a better box)
  63. stpeter BTW I am manually copying text from this room over to Chris
  64. Kev I think the plan was to start mirroring stuff onto ds0039.
  65. dwd stpeter, Ah, yes. I should really have thought of that.
  66. Kev This was dependent upon someone working out database replication for us.
  67. Florian Processor Intel Bi XeonE54052x 4x 2.00 GHz Architecture 64 bits NIC GigaEthernet Memory 16 GB Disks 2x 750GB RAID Soft 0/1 VT Instructions
  68. stpeter for the record, ds0039 is a Flosoft machine
  69. bear stpeter - screen share with chris?
  70. Florian right. Flosoft.biz would be willing to replace that machine with the configuration mentioned above. ds0039 has no RAID.
  71. dwd bear, I'm sure if he could screen share he could do proper XMPP.
  72. Kev I quite like the idea of fixing up athena (either by replacement of disk or box).
  73. Florian puts his board hat on again
  74. stpeter bear: this will work for now -- I think I'll do some riddim bot hacking over the holidays
  75. Kev I'm not entirely sure I can come up with a convincing reason not to migrate athena over to the offered Flosoft machine, off the top of my head.
  76. bear was just offering
  77. stpeter Kev: I don't see a good reason
  78. Florian the problem I see with ds0039, it has no RAID
  79. bear +1 to migrate to flosoft: it gives us a recent hardware base and RAID
  80. dwd Kev, What's your unconvincing reasons?
  81. Florian so I would say ds0039 is bad, but Flosoft.biz can replace ds0039 with the dual CPU box above, which does have software RAID
  82. stpeter we've had all the machines in Iowa so that they're all in one place, Jer could check out the hardware if needed, etc.
  83. Kev dwd: I quite like having stuff all in Iowa.
  84. dwd "stuff" == our data?
  85. Kev No, the servers.
  86. stpeter Kev: yeah, but that means we need to maintain machines -- isn't that kind of old-fashioned these days?
  87. dwd Well, having your eggs all in one basket does make them more convenient to carry.
  88. Kev stpeter: Some of us are old fashioned. Not all of us are trendy Lua coders like you.
  89. stpeter and it also means that we have problems if there are connectivity issues
  90. Florian right
  91. Kev But the original suggestion was that we had the main box in the bunker, and then mirrored that over to ds0039.
  92. Ashley is there any reason to consider EC2 or others of that ilk?
  93. stpeter Kev: I'm talking about changing my website back to server-side includes :P
  94. Kev Which seem like a pretty sensible solution to the network failure issue.
  95. luca tagliaferri has left
  96. Kev Ashley: None that I can think of.
  97. dwd Does that need MySQL expertise to figure out how to keep them in sync properly?
  98. Florian the question is: Do we really need to be syncing stuff?
  99. Kev dwd: Either that, or we set up a cunning reverse proxy thing.
  100. Florian i.e. is there a point in putting in that much effort for a single site?
  101. dwd Do we have, or can we arrange, MySQL expertise?
  102. bear syncing and all that seems overkill for such a basic setup that xsf has
  103. Florian Master-Master replication with MySQL is annoying
  104. dwd Florian, I think it looks really bad when our site is down.
  105. Kev Florian: I don't know. It's jolly inconvenient when the site is down.
  106. Florian bear: I agree
  107. stpeter dwd: agreed, for sure
  108. bear if the urge to keep servers with physical access is that great then iowa is the only option as anything else incurs fully managed server costs
  109. Kev bear: Well, yes, but a previous Board decided we wanted a database driven site and not the nice plain-text one we had before.
  110. Florian dwd / Kev: definitely. But I'm sure the site will be quite reliable on a single server
  111. Florian as the hardware / network is covered by the SLA
  112. dwd Florian, So question - I'm happy to assume that flosoft's bandwidth is perfect; what happens if ds0039++ drops?
  113. Florian if it drops, someone in the DC will take a look at it and bring it back up
  114. bear to answer the original mysql question - a once an hour master/slave setup is very simple to configure (especially if the mirror is readonly)
  115. stpeter I'd be fine with that
  116. stpeter that = website(s?) at Flosoft
  117. Florian I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time on a HA setup for an edge case (the website isn't mission critical)
  118. stpeter Florian: +`1
  119. dwd Florian, What does Flosoft.biz want in compensation? (ie, money, sponsorship, etc)?
  120. Kev Florian: Actually, I'd argue the website is the only mission critical thing!
  121. stpeter Kev: heh
  122. dwd Kev, I'd agree.
  123. Kev The XSF's mission being to shove out these standards things.
  124. Florian dwd: Sponsorship
  125. dwd Florian, In any particular form?
  126. Florian well, what's the level for ± 1200€
  127. bear 200pt sponsor text on each page?
  128. stpeter Kev: you have a point
  129. dwd stpeter, Well, he's certainly sharp.
  130. bear waves the "joke" flag in case it wasn't obvious
  131. stpeter I'll note that the XSF does have money in the bank and could afford to purchase a new machine to replace athena
  132. bear if flosoft is offering a server in exchange for sponsorship status - I like that idea so the cash can go towards other items
  133. dwd Florian, Actually, i don't know what levels there are, really.
  134. Florian http://xmpp.org/sponsor/sponsor-the-xsf/
  135. Florian Silver or Gold
  136. stpeter naturally, another approach (I hate to say this) is to go back to a static website so that it's easier to replicate across servers
  137. dwd Florian, OK. Do you reckon some kind of HA could be sorted for a Gold sponsorship?
  138. bear to make sure I have this clear in my head... the option would be to have primary on flosoft with iowa server being the backup/utility server?
  139. Florian we could set up replication to Iowa
  140. dwd bear, Well, the Board is not going to make technical decisions.
  141. Florian but not a second server
  142. Florian i.e. Flosoft.biz would be happy to help setting up failover mechanisms to external hardware
  143. bear not even thinking on *how* - just asking what the roles would be
  144. dwd bear, The Board can, however, give the item authorization to go various routes.
  145. dwd "iteam".
  146. Florian so technically I'm thinking something like MySQL replication + webserver on another machine in Iowa
  147. dwd So, I think we have those options now - so can we make a decision on whether we could in principle accept Flosoft's offer? (Should the item want it)
  148. dwd I'm +1 on this, incidentally.
  149. Florian I'd like to abstain from this vote as I'm biased.
  150. bear seeing the pushback on not talking specifics, then we can only vote on putting the choice to the iteam and getting their feedback
  151. Kev I think we should have at least Jonathan's input before deciding.
  152. bear is +1 to this
  153. dwd bear, If the item want to go the Flosoft route, I don't see a need for them to come back to us.
  154. Kev Given that he's largely responsible for 'machine' admin.
  155. stpeter Kev: +1 to getting Jonathan's input
  156. dwd Kev, Right. But that's fine. The iteam can decide to use whatever options we're authorizing here.
  157. dwd Ashley, You happy in principle with Flosoft getting sponsorship in exchange for webserver?
  158. Ashley +1
  159. stpeter BTW, the other major infrastructure that the XSF runs is atlas = all the mailing lists (and we also use athena for running the muc.xmpp.org chatrooms)
  160. stpeter Chris says: " if it's flobiz's offer we are voting on, I think I am fine with this"
  161. dwd OK.
  162. dwd So the other option is to buy a new machine - that is, a replacement Athena.
  163. stpeter BTW, I receive offers of help on occasion from random ISPs and hosting providers and such -- I should keep better track of those
  164. stpeter dwd: right
  165. stpeter dwd: and atlas won't last forever, either
  166. stpeter would we be comfortable hosting both email and web and muc.xmpp.org on the same machine?
  167. Kev I was pondering that.
  168. stpeter that's probably an iteam discussion item
  169. dwd stpeter, Right, that's one for iteam.
  170. Kev We've traditionally limited access to the mail machine much more than to the others.
  171. bear the server that flosoft is offering can handle all of that
  172. stpeter Kev: right
  173. Florian right
  174. stpeter ok my other conference call is finished so I have more cycles
  175. Florian 16GB of RAM and 2x 4 Core CPUs
  176. dwd My gut feeling is that machines which handle mail and XMPP should probably stay in Iowa.
  177. dwd I'm not sure I can construct and argument as to why.
  178. stpeter heh
  179. Florian heh
  180. bear status quo is hard to shift
  181. Florian I'd say that is something for Iteam to discuss anyways
  182. stpeter I think I'd be comfortable with putting mail and xmpp (which is limited) on the same machine
  183. stpeter Florian: agreed
  184. stpeter or we can discuss on the members@ list
  185. Florian so we're authorizing: - A Flosoft.biz sponsored machine - Buying a new machine
  186. dwd So if we're to buy a new machine for Athena, and possible Atlas as well, what costs are we looking at, and is this within the scope of the XSF's current cash reserves?
  187. stpeter which might attract more people to help with infrastructure issues
  188. dwd stpeter, The final decision remains with the iteam, though, I feel.
  189. Kev Atlas is, as far as I'm aware, very low requirement.
  190. stpeter dwd: that leads into your next agenda item :)
  191. Kev In fact, given the age of the various boxes, all the requirements are fairly low.
  192. stpeter dwd: "Teams, SIGs, and other constructs "
  193. stpeter KEv: yes
  194. dwd It does. We're also running wildly over. :-)
  195. stpeter dwd: indeed
  196. dwd OK. So I think we ask the iteam to scope out hardware costs and come back to us, OK?
  197. stpeter I think so, yes
  198. bear +1
  199. dwd OK, so next item...
  200. Kev Board Chair to chase iteam, then.
  201. Florian sure
  202. dwd Kev, Well, walk firmly after them anyway.
  203. dwd "Teams, SIGs and other constructs".
  204. dwd So a team is defined as beign XSF members only.
  205. dwd Whereas a SIG is open to all-comers.
  206. bear IMO, the only team we need like that is iTeam
  207. stpeter per they Bylaws, yes
  208. stpeter http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-bylaws/
  209. dwd We've got both a communications team and a tech-review team, and the iteam.
  210. stpeter should add a table of contents to that page
  211. dwd Are there any others?
  212. stpeter no
  213. Kev I'm not convinced that we have a communications team or a tech review team in anything other than name.
  214. stpeter Kev: correct
  215. dwd Well, nor me.
  216. stpeter Kev: and I am not convinced that we need them
  217. bear agrees
  218. Florian +1
  219. stpeter I think that everyone can (and many should) be helping with technical reviews, but that's what the standards@xmpp.org list is for
  220. bear the only structure I could see to SIGs is a tech council or board member being on "hook" for any SIGs
  221. dwd OK. So do we need to try and motivate people to do a "communications SIG", so we can push news and exciting stuff from any sources?
  222. stpeter and communications can happen easily because many people have access to the website to make changes (although few do) -- however, there's more to communication than the website, I suppose, with all the social networking stuff we could do
  223. stpeter BTW Chris has another meeting to go to
  224. bear I would love to create a little dashboard to allow for pushing to the various social streams
  225. dwd OK, that's fine. We're overrunning, anyway.
  226. dwd I'm assuming everyone is happy keeping the iteam as a formal team (assuming it is one).
  227. Florian why not just have an open mailinglist
  228. Florian where people can post ready articles to?
  229. dwd Florian, Yeah, that is, in effect, a SIG.
  230. stpeter Florian: I just shut down the news@jabber.org list :)
  231. Florian that existed?
  232. stpeter yes
  233. stpeter from 1999 on
  234. Florian well, something like: submit@xmpp.org
  235. bear people can post to members list with subject line marker [news] or something
  236. stpeter but we haven't used it in ages
  237. Florian or that
  238. stpeter bear: yeah
  239. dwd bear, That restricts it to only members, though.
  240. bear for xsf comm output - I don't mind it being members only
  241. bear it's communication *from* xsf
  242. bear not about
  243. stpeter right
  244. dwd bear, Is it? The comm team used to produce newsletters about XMPP.
  245. stpeter dwd: really?
  246. dwd stpeter, Did it not?
  247. stpeter we did have the "Jabber Journal" back in the old days
  248. Kev Nyco used to do roundups, yes.
  249. bear their was a blog posting that used to be done regularly - the roundups
  250. stpeter ah true
  251. stpeter I never saw those as "newsletters" :)
  252. stpeter thus the disconnect
  253. dwd Right, sorry, I forgot the name.
  254. bear I'm feeling that if we get pushback from the community that it's hard to post notices about xmpp from non-members we can adjust
  255. dwd I don't think we'd get that pushback. We're not getting anything much at the moment, after all.
  256. bear I just get all squeamish about the xsf blog being available for anyone to push text to
  257. Ashley would something like having a reddit clone for ppl to post news articles be interesting?
  258. Kev Ashley: I don't understand the concept.
  259. stpeter let's go with bear's suggestion as a start -- in any case, it can't hurt AFAICS
  260. dwd But in any case, we're reasonably sure that the communications team and the tech-review team can be formally disbanded?
  261. bear sounds like something the "social media" SIG can handle and make recommendations :)
  262. Ashley i'm assuming we're talking about articles that might exist somewhere on a public URL
  263. bear invites Ashley to help form the SocialSIG with him
  264. Kev Ashley: Ah, I think we generally push 'unique' content.
  265. Ashley sure, that'd be fun bear!
  266. Kev Finding other stuff people have written sounds interesting.
  267. bear +1 to disbanding the formal comm and tech teams
  268. stpeter (just to back up, it appears we have agreement that the Technical Review Team was a nice idea but hasn't panned out -- shall we propose on the members@ list to disband that one?)
  269. stpeter heh
  270. stpeter bear: I think that's reasonable
  271. dwd Florian, ?
  272. Ashley reddit is a digg clone
  273. stpeter we can always start them again if needed / desired, but I don't see a need for them
  274. Florian yes
  275. dwd Ashley, ?
  276. jef has joined
  277. Florian +1
  278. Ashley sorry, backing up and reading :)
  279. Florian no more formal teams
  280. Ashley ah +1
  281. dwd OK.
  282. bear (well, iteam still remains as formal)?
  283. Kev Florian: I don't think the vote was for *all* teams?
  284. Florian not all, no :)
  285. Florian the tech and comm team
  286. dwd So, we'll scuttle to the next item...
  287. Ashley for example, here's ycombinators implementation of reddit: http://news.ycombinator.com/
  288. dwd Do we want either an Interop SIG or a FOSDEM Team?
  289. stpeter interesting
  290. Florian do we need one?
  291. Florian I would say, let's allow teams if there are people for it
  292. stpeter FOSDEM just happens, doesn't it?
  293. stpeter Interop is a possibility, but we might want to just work on some code there first and we do have the interop@ email list
  294. Florian +1
  295. dwd stpeter, I think an "Interop SIG" is identical to the interop mailing list, except that it gets some XSF authority.
  296. stpeter dwd: FWIW yes
  297. dwd stpeter, And as for FOSDEM, we're trying to do quite a lot this year, and I think putting together a formal, if short-lived, team might help get some focus on that.
  298. bear +1 to Interop SIG and FOSDEM SIG - the latter happens organically it seems even if we don't "bless" it
  299. Florian +1
  300. dwd bear, Note I proposed a FOSDEM *team* - as in, members only.
  301. bear sorry - got carried away with the urge to type SIG
  302. dwd bear, Rather than allowing an open free-for-all, basically.
  303. bear amends +1 to be for suggested breakdown
  304. stpeter dwd: it could be a standing team that gets active once a year -- we might want to have a separate OSCON team if we think that's important
  305. bear Events Team
  306. Florian let's start with a FOSDEM Team
  307. Florian and see how it goes :)
  308. dwd stpeter, I think a team that's dormant for 10 months of the year is the moral equivalent of a short-lived team, but yes, we can deal with that as we reach it.
  309. stpeter is unconvinced that we need an events team since we can just coordinate on the members@ list
  310. dwd stpeter, It's useful having people to explicitly kick.
  311. stpeter perchance
  312. bear I need to run to a different meeting
  313. dwd Ashley, Any opinion? If not, we can take this one to the list.
  314. Ashley i don't feel particularly strongly either way. i do however agree with dwd's point
  315. Ashley i think need some sort of official POC or two for the events
  316. dwd OK, let's leave this to another time, then, if bear's going. We're still quorate for now, we'll discuss on the list.
  317. dwd Sorry. Unclear.
  318. dwd We're still quorate for now, however, we'll discuss on the list.
  319. bear :)
  320. Florian :)
  321. dwd OK, so I shall propose a motion to adjourn.
  322. Ashley +1
  323. Florian +1
  324. bear seconds
  325. bear next meeting?
  326. dwd Same bat-time, same bat-channel.
  327. bear sweet
  328. stpeter does that mean next Wednesday?
  329. dwd It does.
  330. Florian +1
  331. bear flees for much more boring but facetime required meeting
  332. dwd Except we have to call it Bat-Wednesday.
  333. stpeter ok, I will add it to the calendar
  334. dwd Ta.
  335. dwd Florian, You writing up the minutes, then?
  336. stpeter I did some editing at http://typewith.me/xsf but was doing too many things at once :(
  337. Florian I can, I've got some notes on typewith.me
  338. Florian but I need to run out for a dinner
  339. Florian will send later tonight if that's ok
  340. stpeter sure
  341. stpeter I'll do some editing there as well
  342. stpeter brb
  343. stpeter calendar updated
  344. stpeter has left
  345. stpeter has joined
  346. stpeter http://typewith.me/xsf updated
  347. stpeter I need to run an errand, bbiab
  348. dwd I can do them tomorrow, actually, I was only winding Florian up. :-)
  349. dwd has left
  350. stpeter heh
  351. stpeter anyway, bbiab
  352. Kev has left
  353. lurker11542 has left
  354. Ashley has left
  355. jef has left