an article that talks about sourcefourge and itanium

an article that talks about sourcefourge and itanium

[Mark Galassi]

There's some interesting stuff in the second half about how Augustine
thinks that sourceforge helped VA/Linux increase support contract
revenue.

http://www.upside.com/Open_Season/392eeb7b0_yahoo.html

Re: an article that talks about sourcefourge and itanium

[Jim Kingdon]

> There's some interesting stuff in the second half about how Augustine
> thinks that sourceforge helped VA/Linux increase support contract
> revenue.
> 
> http://www.upside.com/Open_Season/392eeb7b0_yahoo.html

Thanks for the link.  At the risk of beating a dead horse, the rest of
this message is about sourceware's funding and such.

I've heard at least one Red Hat customer say they like having their
work being done on sourceware (rather than a Red Hat internal server),
because they can track it better.  And Tiemann also asked me how we
were going with the search for a new "owner".

I think at this point it might be a question of what do we want out of
Red Hat?  (watch out, there is a "careful what you wish for, you might
get it" element to this).  Do we want IS to leave us alone?  Do we
want them to handle everything (and if so can they provide the kind of
service we're looking for)?  Do any of us want to be (full/part time
or consultant) sysadmins?  Do we want to farm out specific tasks to
sysadmin?  Do we want to automate those tasks so they don't need
farming out?

I'm willing to help formulate answers to those questions (for now the
answer has been that we want to muddle through as we have been and let
people contribute on the basis of
make-small-contributions-first-then-get-more-access, and although that
may sound flippant, some thought has gone into it).

Re: an article that talks about sourcefourge and itanium

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 200005301446.KAA08704@devserv.devel.redhat.com >you write:
  > 
  > I think at this point it might be a question of what do we want out of
  > Red Hat?  (watch out, there is a "careful what you wish for, you might
  > get it" element to this).  Do we want IS to leave us alone?  Do we
  > want them to handle everything (and if so can they provide the kind of
  > service we're looking for)?  Do any of us want to be (full/part time
  > or consultant) sysadmins?  Do we want to farm out specific tasks to
  > sysadmin?  Do we want to automate those tasks so they don't need
  > farming out?
At one time we wanted sysadmin basically out of the loop (except for backups),
that was mostly because sysadmin was unwilling/unable to provide the kind of
services we needed (high volume mail, shell access for some external folks,
potential root access for some folks, etc etc).

I don't know if the climate in sysadmin has changed enough that we would
want further involvement from the sysadmin staff.

I still believe that if someone wants to take on sourceware as an official
part/full time task that some kind of arrangement can be made.

jeff

Re: an article that talks about sourcefourge and itanium

[Tom Tromey]

Jim> I think at this point it might be a question of what do we want
Jim> out of Red Hat?  (watch out, there is a "careful what you wish
Jim> for, you might get it" element to this).  Do we want IS to leave
Jim> us alone?  Do we want them to handle everything (and if so can
Jim> they provide the kind of service we're looking for)?  Do any of
Jim> us want to be (full/part time or consultant) sysadmins?  Do we
Jim> want to farm out specific tasks to sysadmin?  Do we want to
Jim> automate those tasks so they don't need farming out?

I think:

* We should have someone work on sourceware full time.  As I see it
  the work would involve automating things to the extent possible, so
  that project maintainers wouldn't need constant help to do simple
  things (tweak mailing lists, user maintenance, etc)
* We should get IS to help if they agree with our agenda
  (they didn't always)
* I don't want to be a sysadmin ever again

Tom

Re: an article that talks about sourcefourge and itanium

[Tom Tromey]

Jim> I think at this point it might be a question of what do we want
Jim> out of Red Hat?  (watch out, there is a "careful what you wish
Jim> for, you might get it" element to this).  Do we want IS to leave
Jim> us alone?  Do we want them to handle everything (and if so can
Jim> they provide the kind of service we're looking for)?  Do any of
Jim> us want to be (full/part time or consultant) sysadmins?  Do we
Jim> want to farm out specific tasks to sysadmin?  Do we want to
Jim> automate those tasks so they don't need farming out?

I think:

* We should have someone work on sourceware full time.  As I see it
  the work would involve automating things to the extent possible, so
  that project maintainers wouldn't need constant help to do simple
  things (tweak mailing lists, user maintenance, etc)
* We should get IS to help if they agree with our agenda
  (they didn't always)
* I don't want to be a sysadmin ever again

Tom

Re: an article that talks about sourcefourge and itanium

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 200005301446.KAA08704@devserv.devel.redhat.com >you write:
  > 
  > I think at this point it might be a question of what do we want out of
  > Red Hat?  (watch out, there is a "careful what you wish for, you might
  > get it" element to this).  Do we want IS to leave us alone?  Do we
  > want them to handle everything (and if so can they provide the kind of
  > service we're looking for)?  Do any of us want to be (full/part time
  > or consultant) sysadmins?  Do we want to farm out specific tasks to
  > sysadmin?  Do we want to automate those tasks so they don't need
  > farming out?
At one time we wanted sysadmin basically out of the loop (except for backups),
that was mostly because sysadmin was unwilling/unable to provide the kind of
services we needed (high volume mail, shell access for some external folks,
potential root access for some folks, etc etc).

I don't know if the climate in sysadmin has changed enough that we would
want further involvement from the sysadmin staff.

I still believe that if someone wants to take on sourceware as an official
part/full time task that some kind of arrangement can be made.

jeff

Re: an article that talks about sourcefourge and itanium

[Jim Kingdon]

> There's some interesting stuff in the second half about how Augustine
> thinks that sourceforge helped VA/Linux increase support contract
> revenue.
> 
> http://www.upside.com/Open_Season/392eeb7b0_yahoo.html

Thanks for the link.  At the risk of beating a dead horse, the rest of
this message is about sourceware's funding and such.

I've heard at least one Red Hat customer say they like having their
work being done on sourceware (rather than a Red Hat internal server),
because they can track it better.  And Tiemann also asked me how we
were going with the search for a new "owner".

I think at this point it might be a question of what do we want out of
Red Hat?  (watch out, there is a "careful what you wish for, you might
get it" element to this).  Do we want IS to leave us alone?  Do we
want them to handle everything (and if so can they provide the kind of
service we're looking for)?  Do any of us want to be (full/part time
or consultant) sysadmins?  Do we want to farm out specific tasks to
sysadmin?  Do we want to automate those tasks so they don't need
farming out?

I'm willing to help formulate answers to those questions (for now the
answer has been that we want to muddle through as we have been and let
people contribute on the basis of
make-small-contributions-first-then-get-more-access, and although that
may sound flippant, some thought has gone into it).

an article that talks about sourcefourge and itanium

[Mark Galassi]

There's some interesting stuff in the second half about how Augustine
thinks that sourceforge helped VA/Linux increase support contract
revenue.

http://www.upside.com/Open_Season/392eeb7b0_yahoo.html