On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 06:18:36PM +1030, Shane Ambler wrote:
> Yes, well, it has only taken a few years to transfer across and finalise
> the move so you may have missed some of the notices and discussions.
I think this misses the point. Here's the way the move was handled:
Day N : "We need to move gborg."
Day N+7: "We still need to move gborg."
Day N+6 months: "We still need to move gborg."
Day N+1 year: "We still need to move gborg."
Day N+2 years: "We still need to move gborg."
Day M-1 day: "I'm turning gborg of tomorrow!"
Day M: gborg off
Somewhere between Day N+2 years and Day M-1, there really ought to have been
Day M-30 days: "Gborg will be decommissioned in 30 days."
Day M-7 days: "Gborg will be decommissioned in 7 days. If you haven't moved
your data yet, get to work! This deadline won't be moved."
I don't believe this is too much to ask, for any of our services. I have
the impression that some members of the www group believe the same thing.
This project is now far too large to make decisions one day and put them
into place the next. It's _also_ far too large not to set reasonable
deadlines for members of the community, and stick to them, in respect of
hosted infrastructure -- provided the lead time for that sort of
administrative work is long enough. Note that, "We really need to do
something about this," isn't a deadline.
Old sigs will return after re-constitution of blue smoke
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2007-11-14 17:34:05|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Gborg: announcement by 404|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2007-11-14 14:35:31|
|Subject: Re: Strange anoncvs sync behavior|
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Decibel!||Date: 2007-11-14 17:02:28|
|Subject: Re: Looking for 8.3 quotes!|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2007-11-14 15:08:46|
|Subject: Re: Avoiding upgrade backlash|