Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Gborg: announcement by 404

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)Sheeky(dot)Biz>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Gborg: announcement by 404
Date: 2007-11-14 17:34:05
Message-ID: 42A7938C4D85463055F46A57@ganymede.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-www

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

For all the discussions on why doing this so quickly was such a bad idea, do
you realize that *so far*, there have been a whole three *active* projects that
hadn't been moved over? pgweb, pljava and pgjdbc ...

There may be other projects that hadn't moved yet, but they are either dead
projects, or so little used that nobody has noticed the site is down ... but
that is why there is a backup of the code and mailing lists, *just in case* ...

- --On Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:43:02 -0500 Andrew Sullivan
<ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> wrote:

> 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
> the following:
>
> 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."
>
> &c.
>
> 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.
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> Old sigs will return after re-constitution of blue smoke
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHOzGN4QvfyHIvDvMRAkIEAKCdH0NSNEtC8Dtr+IDyD4FbJn9apgCePwd3
I4NNTbAt0y4VgorSFWBK8N4=
=VooA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-11-14 17:36:38 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Gborg: announcement by 404
Previous Message Jon Sime 2007-11-14 17:29:27 Re: Avoiding upgrade backlash

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-11-14 17:36:38 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Gborg: announcement by 404
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2007-11-14 15:43:02 Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Gborg: announcement by 404