1 |
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:57 AM Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 10/8/19 7:21 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
5 |
> > In any case, since many people *do* rely on it, maybe we should declare |
6 |
> it |
7 |
> > official? [+] |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > And, if that's OK with both of you, move it onto infra hardware? |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Happy to sponsor both for the next council meeting agenda. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > |
14 |
> > [+] At some point the one remaining whiner doesnt count anymore. |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> |
17 |
> In the past, infra has been understandably hesitant to take on new |
18 |
> services due to staffing issues. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Additionally, I understand that the current infra design does not easily |
21 |
> allow granular access control, preventing non-infra members from easily |
22 |
> performing maintenance on individual services. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Has this situation changed? I doubt infra want to take responsibility |
25 |
> for the bot, and I don't fancy the hassle of trying to find people to |
26 |
> poke things on my behalf. |
27 |
> |
28 |
|
29 |
Things have not changed. We don't need to run the bot, we just need some |
30 |
clearer contact info for it IMHO. |
31 |
|
32 |
I don't think the reliability of the bot is really that different from |
33 |
official infra services, but it was unclear who owned it and so there was |
34 |
confusion; and I think the confusion is the key thing we are looking to |
35 |
resolve here. |
36 |
|
37 |
-A |