You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to infrastructure-dev@apache.org by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> on 2015/03/26 03:35:48 UTC
FAQ on CMS decommissioning
So the FAQ is out and it's public. I'd like to open this thread for community feedback.
Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the service as it now stands, which given that Baldr is 7+ years old, should the host fail the service will not be restored in a timely fashion if ever. Timetables, though not expressed yet, need to factor that in.
CMS Decommissioning RFC - Frequently Asked Questions - Infrastructure - Apache Software Foundation
| |
| | | | | | | |
| CMS Decommissioning RFC - Frequently Asked Questions...Tools Attachments (0) Page History Restrictions |
| |
| View on cwiki.apache.org | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Joseph Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
The main distinction is that because the faq is public its best to collect feedback on a public list. The infra-dev@ list is public whereas the infra@ list is only readable by committers who subscribe.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 2, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Chris Lambertus <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 26, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> Chris, can you change the link for feedback from infrastructure@ to infrastructure-dev@? I don't seem to have edit privs on the page.
>
> Not opposed, but curious as to your reasoning why? The initial proposal was sent to infra@, the faq was sent to infra@. I don’t know the distinction between the two lists, but suspect infra@ reaches a wider audience?
>
>
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Chris Lambertus <cm...@apache.org>.
> On Mar 26, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Chris, can you change the link for feedback from infrastructure@ to infrastructure-dev@? I don't seem to have edit privs on the page.
Not opposed, but curious as to your reasoning why? The initial proposal was sent to infra@, the faq was sent to infra@. I don’t know the distinction between the two lists, but suspect infra@ reaches a wider audience?
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Chris, can you change the link for feedback from infrastructure@ to infrastructure-dev@? I don't seem to have edit privs on the page.
On Thursday, March 26, 2015 5:01 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
On Thursday, March 26, 2015, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
Here is my feedback.
The website openoffice.org is maintained using the Apache CMS. We chose the CMS because the ASF and Infra represented it as the way to go with ASF support.
The site is a combination of HTML from the initial donation and MD templating. The conversion path in this FAQ for OpenOffice has no good options.
The project depends heavily on edits using the bookmarklet / GUI which the FAQ calls out as not being replaced with no alternative offered.
This incredible feature allows anyone in the world to submit patches. And people do. This has been instrumental in bringing people from many language communities into the project community.
This plan will have great harm to how we grow our community and degrade one of our strongest areas.
On top of this significant effort was put into porting the site and making the templates work.
Please find a way to keep the CMS usable.
What steps has infrastructure taken steps in case this proposal is rejected?
I second what Dave wrote.
Thanks Dave for defining what AOO needs.
rgdsjan i
Regards,
Dave
On Mar 25, 2015, at 7:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Sigh this list strips html. Here is the url again:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/CMS+Decommissioning+RFC+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:35 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>
> So the FAQ is out and it's public. I'd like to open this thread for community feedback.
> Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the service as it now stands, which given that Baldr is 7+ years old, should the host fail the service will not be restored in a timely fashion if ever. Timetables, though not expressed yet, need to factor that in.
> CMS Decommissioning RFC - Frequently Asked Questions - Infrastructure - Apache Software Foundation
>
> | |
> | | | | | | | |
> | CMS Decommissioning RFC - Frequently Asked Questions...Tools Attachments (0) Page History Restrictions |
> | |
> | View on cwiki.apache.org | Preview by Yahoo |
> | |
> | |
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
On Thursday, March 26, 2015, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Here is my feedback.
>
> The website openoffice.org is maintained using the Apache CMS. We chose
> the CMS because the ASF and Infra represented it as the way to go with ASF
> support.
>
> The site is a combination of HTML from the initial donation and MD
> templating. The conversion path in this FAQ for OpenOffice has no good
> options.
>
> The project depends heavily on edits using the bookmarklet / GUI which the
> FAQ calls out as not being replaced with no alternative offered.
>
> This incredible feature allows anyone in the world to submit patches. And
> people do. This has been instrumental in bringing people from many language
> communities into the project community.
>
> This plan will have great harm to how we grow our community and degrade
> one of our strongest areas.
>
> On top of this significant effort was put into porting the site and making
> the templates work.
>
> Please find a way to keep the CMS usable.
>
> What steps has infrastructure taken steps in case this proposal is
> rejected?
I second what Dave wrote.
Thanks Dave for defining what AOO needs.
rgds
jan i
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 7:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Sigh this list strips html. Here is the url again:
> >
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/CMS+Decommissioning+RFC+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions
> > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:35 PM, Joe Schaefer
> <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > So the FAQ is out and it's public. I'd like to open this thread for
> community feedback.
> > Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the
> service as it now stands, which given that Baldr is 7+ years old, should
> the host fail the service will not be restored in a timely fashion if ever.
> Timetables, though not expressed yet, need to factor that in.
> > CMS Decommissioning RFC - Frequently Asked Questions - Infrastructure -
> Apache Software Foundation
> >
> > | |
> > | | | | | | | |
> > | CMS Decommissioning RFC - Frequently Asked Questions...Tools
> Attachments (0) Page History Restrictions |
> > | |
> > | View on cwiki.apache.org | Preview by Yahoo |
> > | |
> > | |
>
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Here is my feedback.
The website openoffice.org is maintained using the Apache CMS. We chose the CMS because the ASF and Infra represented it as the way to go with ASF support.
The site is a combination of HTML from the initial donation and MD templating. The conversion path in this FAQ for OpenOffice has no good options.
The project depends heavily on edits using the bookmarklet / GUI which the FAQ calls out as not being replaced with no alternative offered.
This incredible feature allows anyone in the world to submit patches. And people do. This has been instrumental in bringing people from many language communities into the project community.
This plan will have great harm to how we grow our community and degrade one of our strongest areas.
On top of this significant effort was put into porting the site and making the templates work.
Please find a way to keep the CMS usable.
What steps has infrastructure taken steps in case this proposal is rejected?
Regards,
Dave
On Mar 25, 2015, at 7:37 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Sigh this list strips html. Here is the url again:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/CMS+Decommissioning+RFC+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:35 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
>
>
> So the FAQ is out and it's public. I'd like to open this thread for community feedback.
> Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the service as it now stands, which given that Baldr is 7+ years old, should the host fail the service will not be restored in a timely fashion if ever. Timetables, though not expressed yet, need to factor that in.
> CMS Decommissioning RFC - Frequently Asked Questions - Infrastructure - Apache Software Foundation
>
> | |
> | | | | | | | |
> | CMS Decommissioning RFC - Frequently Asked Questions...Tools Attachments (0) Page History Restrictions |
> | |
> | View on cwiki.apache.org | Preview by Yahoo |
> | |
> | |
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Hi guys,
reading the FAQ, I have a few questiosn and concerns.
First of all, I have to mention that both Directory and MINA projects
are heavily depending on the current CMS su-yste, and we have spent a
huge amout of time migrating everything we had from Confluence to the
ASF CMS 3 years ago. I'm not talking about hours of work, but many, many
days. That being said ...
- Do we have a list of the 50 services Infra is managing ? (that's more
for my personnal edication)
- I very sympathize with the desire to use git insead of svn for the
CMS. This would be a real improvement.
- regarding the CMS proposed replacement :
o it's mentionned that we will be allowed to run MD tranlsation from
INFRA machines. Is it similar to what we currently do when we commit our
modifications in the ASF CMS ?
- what is Cactus ? How different will it be to what we currenlty have ?
(pros and cons, same for Jekyll)
- regarding the staging/production switch : how will it be managed ?
Will it be possible to check the generated content *before* going into
production ?
- what about javadoc ? Currently, it's a bit messy, as we have to push
the Javadoc to production, excluding it from being deleted b the
declaration of 'protected directories' in extpaths. Will we have the
same mechanism, or a better one ?
Now, to be clear, I'm leaning toward keeping what we have, for one
simple reason : "if it's not broken, don't try to fix it". But I also
understand that there are some constraints that does not fit with the
way INFRA is working now (ie, the team size, the SLA, the costs, etc).
Sometime, we have to move out of our comfort zone. I'm just trying to
understand why 3 years ago we decided that developing our own CMS was
necessary, and now that we have a dying machine, we need to ditch what
we have done, just because nobody is able to support the current system,
or simply move it from a BSD box to a Linux box. OTOH, we may have made
a wrong choice 3 years ago, and this come with a price which is not
pleasant to pay... Not sure it's interesting to point fingers to X or Y,
it won't make things going better.
My 2 cts...
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Sigh this list strips html. Here is the url again:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/CMS+Decommissioning+RFC+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:35 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
So the FAQ is out and it's public. I'd like to open this thread for community feedback.
Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the service as it now stands, which given that Baldr is 7+ years old, should the host fail the service will not be restored in a timely fashion if ever. Timetables, though not expressed yet, need to factor that in.
CMS Decommissioning RFC - Frequently Asked Questions - Infrastructure - Apache Software Foundation
| |
| | | | | | | |
| CMS Decommissioning RFC - Frequently Asked Questions...Tools Attachments (0) Page History Restrictions |
| |
| View on cwiki.apache.org | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Upayavira <uv...@odoko.co.uk>.
I think another point I’d like to see more emphasised is that the CMS
serves/served a purpose. There were endless debates in and around infra
about how to build websites - it was an ongoing, and often painful
thing. What Joe managed to do was to pull that all together into a
single system, and in doing so, successfully silenced the debate - as in
there was nothing much to talk about, the CMS did what it said on the
box, and gave the ASF what it needed at the time.
Roll forwards to now - with hindsight, we can see that having had that
service built by a single individual, not a team, and it having been
built using technologies that are an integral part of the OS of choice
at the time, now cause us problems, and given the excellent work the
infra team is now doing under David’s guidance, the fact that the
current infra team does not understand the tech behind the CMS,
something needs to be done.
I guess what I’m saying could be summarised into two statements:
“Thank you to Joe for the significant contribution to the ASF that the
CMS is, that he took on off his own back (albeit on ASF time) to solve a
problem that many folks at the ASF were having.”
and
“Thank you to David and his team for taking seriously the task of
looking at all of the services that the ASF has, at the stack we have,
and how best to provide those services going forwards, especially when
this involves making challenging decisions."
Upayavira
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 08:32 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Joe Schaefer
> <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Well no. You get to have input into the actual decision, along with other contractors and members of the infra President's committee. Infra operates as a hierarchy, your decisions will bubble up to the VP and then the President who reports to the board. The board doesn't have a dog in this debate, so there's no reason for them to second guess the chain of command.
> > All anyone outside the operational chain of command can do is to try to influence that decision making process from the *outside*. It's up to you guys to choose the best course of action for the org as you see fit.
>
> If the President were to make a decision that significantly made
> projects unhappy, the board would indeed have a dog in this debate.
>
> But as the President (and, for that matter, the Infra team) do
> actively solicit input from the affected parties, this is unlikely to
> happen.
>
> Net: don't focus so much on concepts such as 'inside' and 'outside'.
> The key question here seems to be balancing a desire to reduce
> overlapping services and a desire to keep being responsive to PMC
> needs.
>
> > Naturally there is a lot of responsibility in having that kind of decision making authority. I've said more than my peace on the subject to try to provide my experience with the service as it is currently used by projects. Basing your decision solely on my input and that of your peers is not what I have in mind.
> > Projects need to give input on what the implications of the proposal mean for them. And they need to do it themselves, not by sitting behind my "advocacy".Again all I want from this is a good solid well founded decision and plan of action;none of the projects I work on are cms customers so I'd like to step out of this conversation from a focal viewpoint.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:08 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > A preliminary decision. Note the key word. Rightly, infra doesn't want to
> > have to maintain an ever growing array of overlapping or duplicate
> > services. If we are going to "deprecate" the CMS, then obviously the end
> > game is decommissioning. But again, that decision has not been made one way
> > or the other, nor is it going to be made solely by the contractors, or the
> > infra team alone, etc. That's why infra presented the RFC in the first
> > place.
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> According to the proposal Tony wrote infra plans to make a preliminary
> >> decision on the matter on March 31. That the rhetoric has gone from
> >> deprecating to decommissioning is a significant clarification of intentions.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:55 PM, Chris Lambertus <
> >> cml@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Mar 25, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the
> >> service as it now stands
> >>
> >> No, this is NOT the explicit statement. I thought I was very clear on that
> >> in section 1(a) of the FAQ, as was Tony in his initial email (“So we would
> >> like to solicit feedback on our proposal…”), so I will make it as clear as
> >> possible once again:
> >>
> >>
> >> Infra does not have any specific action related to the CMS planned at this
> >> time.
> >>
> >>
> >> This is ONLY a request for commentary from the community on a proposal by
> >> Infra to work towards decommissioning the CMS. It is NOT an express
> >> statement by the infra group that we will be taking any specific action(s).
> >> We seek input from the community on this proposal so that we can make more
> >> informed decisions on the future direction of CMS support, whether that be
> >> via replacement, via resources applied to bring the existing CMS to
> >> acceptable support standards, or some other option TBD.
> >>
> >> Here is the link to the FAQ:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/CMS+Decommissioning+RFC+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions
> >>
> >> -Chris
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 11:21 PM, Joe Schaefer
<jo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Well no. You get to have input into the actual decision, along with other contractors and members of the infra President's committee. Infra operates as a hierarchy, your decisions will bubble up to the VP and then the President who reports to the board. The board doesn't have a dog in this debate, so there's no reason for them to second guess the chain of command.
> All anyone outside the operational chain of command can do is to try to influence that decision making process from the *outside*. It's up to you guys to choose the best course of action for the org as you see fit.
If the President were to make a decision that significantly made
projects unhappy, the board would indeed have a dog in this debate.
But as the President (and, for that matter, the Infra team) do
actively solicit input from the affected parties, this is unlikely to
happen.
Net: don't focus so much on concepts such as 'inside' and 'outside'.
The key question here seems to be balancing a desire to reduce
overlapping services and a desire to keep being responsive to PMC
needs.
> Naturally there is a lot of responsibility in having that kind of decision making authority. I've said more than my peace on the subject to try to provide my experience with the service as it is currently used by projects. Basing your decision solely on my input and that of your peers is not what I have in mind.
> Projects need to give input on what the implications of the proposal mean for them. And they need to do it themselves, not by sitting behind my "advocacy".Again all I want from this is a good solid well founded decision and plan of action;none of the projects I work on are cms customers so I'd like to step out of this conversation from a focal viewpoint.
- Sam Ruby
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:08 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> A preliminary decision. Note the key word. Rightly, infra doesn't want to
> have to maintain an ever growing array of overlapping or duplicate
> services. If we are going to "deprecate" the CMS, then obviously the end
> game is decommissioning. But again, that decision has not been made one way
> or the other, nor is it going to be made solely by the contractors, or the
> infra team alone, etc. That's why infra presented the RFC in the first
> place.
>
> A.
>
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> According to the proposal Tony wrote infra plans to make a preliminary
>> decision on the matter on March 31. That the rhetoric has gone from
>> deprecating to decommissioning is a significant clarification of intentions.
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:55 PM, Chris Lambertus <
>> cml@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 25, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the
>> service as it now stands
>>
>> No, this is NOT the explicit statement. I thought I was very clear on that
>> in section 1(a) of the FAQ, as was Tony in his initial email (“So we would
>> like to solicit feedback on our proposal…”), so I will make it as clear as
>> possible once again:
>>
>>
>> Infra does not have any specific action related to the CMS planned at this
>> time.
>>
>>
>> This is ONLY a request for commentary from the community on a proposal by
>> Infra to work towards decommissioning the CMS. It is NOT an express
>> statement by the infra group that we will be taking any specific action(s).
>> We seek input from the community on this proposal so that we can make more
>> informed decisions on the future direction of CMS support, whether that be
>> via replacement, via resources applied to bring the existing CMS to
>> acceptable support standards, or some other option TBD.
>>
>> Here is the link to the FAQ:
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/CMS+Decommissioning+RFC+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Well no. You get to have input into the actual decision, along with other contractors and members of the infra President's committee. Infra operates as a hierarchy, your decisions will bubble up to the VP and then the President who reports to the board. The board doesn't have a dog in this debate, so there's no reason for them to second guess the chain of command.
All anyone outside the operational chain of command can do is to try to influence that decision making process from the *outside*. It's up to you guys to choose the best course of action for the org as you see fit.
Naturally there is a lot of responsibility in having that kind of decision making authority. I've said more than my peace on the subject to try to provide my experience with the service as it is currently used by projects. Basing your decision solely on my input and that of your peers is not what I have in mind.
Projects need to give input on what the implications of the proposal mean for them. And they need to do it themselves, not by sitting behind my "advocacy".Again all I want from this is a good solid well founded decision and plan of action;none of the projects I work on are cms customers so I'd like to step out of this conversation from a focal viewpoint.
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:08 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
A preliminary decision. Note the key word. Rightly, infra doesn't want to
have to maintain an ever growing array of overlapping or duplicate
services. If we are going to "deprecate" the CMS, then obviously the end
game is decommissioning. But again, that decision has not been made one way
or the other, nor is it going to be made solely by the contractors, or the
infra team alone, etc. That's why infra presented the RFC in the first
place.
A.
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> According to the proposal Tony wrote infra plans to make a preliminary
> decision on the matter on March 31. That the rhetoric has gone from
> deprecating to decommissioning is a significant clarification of intentions.
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:55 PM, Chris Lambertus <
> cml@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >
> > Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the
> service as it now stands
>
> No, this is NOT the explicit statement. I thought I was very clear on that
> in section 1(a) of the FAQ, as was Tony in his initial email (“So we would
> like to solicit feedback on our proposal…”), so I will make it as clear as
> possible once again:
>
>
> Infra does not have any specific action related to the CMS planned at this
> time.
>
>
> This is ONLY a request for commentary from the community on a proposal by
> Infra to work towards decommissioning the CMS. It is NOT an express
> statement by the infra group that we will be taking any specific action(s).
> We seek input from the community on this proposal so that we can make more
> informed decisions on the future direction of CMS support, whether that be
> via replacement, via resources applied to bring the existing CMS to
> acceptable support standards, or some other option TBD.
>
> Here is the link to the FAQ:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/CMS+Decommissioning+RFC+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
A preliminary decision. Note the key word. Rightly, infra doesn't want to
have to maintain an ever growing array of overlapping or duplicate
services. If we are going to "deprecate" the CMS, then obviously the end
game is decommissioning. But again, that decision has not been made one way
or the other, nor is it going to be made solely by the contractors, or the
infra team alone, etc. That's why infra presented the RFC in the first
place.
A.
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> According to the proposal Tony wrote infra plans to make a preliminary
> decision on the matter on March 31. That the rhetoric has gone from
> deprecating to decommissioning is a significant clarification of intentions.
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:55 PM, Chris Lambertus <
> cml@apache.org <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
> >
> > Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the
> service as it now stands
>
> No, this is NOT the explicit statement. I thought I was very clear on that
> in section 1(a) of the FAQ, as was Tony in his initial email (“So we would
> like to solicit feedback on our proposal…”), so I will make it as clear as
> possible once again:
>
>
> Infra does not have any specific action related to the CMS planned at this
> time.
>
>
> This is ONLY a request for commentary from the community on a proposal by
> Infra to work towards decommissioning the CMS. It is NOT an express
> statement by the infra group that we will be taking any specific action(s).
> We seek input from the community on this proposal so that we can make more
> informed decisions on the future direction of CMS support, whether that be
> via replacement, via resources applied to bring the existing CMS to
> acceptable support standards, or some other option TBD.
>
> Here is the link to the FAQ:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/CMS+Decommissioning+RFC+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions
>
> -Chris
>
>
>
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
According to the proposal Tony wrote infra plans to make a preliminary decision on the matter on March 31. That the rhetoric has gone from deprecating to decommissioning is a significant clarification of intentions.
On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:55 PM, Chris Lambertus <cm...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the service as it now stands
No, this is NOT the explicit statement. I thought I was very clear on that in section 1(a) of the FAQ, as was Tony in his initial email (“So we would like to solicit feedback on our proposal…”), so I will make it as clear as possible once again:
Infra does not have any specific action related to the CMS planned at this time.
This is ONLY a request for commentary from the community on a proposal by Infra to work towards decommissioning the CMS. It is NOT an express statement by the infra group that we will be taking any specific action(s). We seek input from the community on this proposal so that we can make more informed decisions on the future direction of CMS support, whether that be via replacement, via resources applied to bring the existing CMS to acceptable support standards, or some other option TBD.
Here is the link to the FAQ:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/CMS+Decommissioning+RFC+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions
-Chris
Re: FAQ on CMS decommissioning
Posted by Chris Lambertus <cm...@apache.org>.
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Note that this explicitly states the intention to decommission the service as it now stands
No, this is NOT the explicit statement. I thought I was very clear on that in section 1(a) of the FAQ, as was Tony in his initial email (“So we would like to solicit feedback on our proposal…”), so I will make it as clear as possible once again:
Infra does not have any specific action related to the CMS planned at this time.
This is ONLY a request for commentary from the community on a proposal by Infra to work towards decommissioning the CMS. It is NOT an express statement by the infra group that we will be taking any specific action(s). We seek input from the community on this proposal so that we can make more informed decisions on the future direction of CMS support, whether that be via replacement, via resources applied to bring the existing CMS to acceptable support standards, or some other option TBD.
Here is the link to the FAQ:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INFRA/CMS+Decommissioning+RFC+-+Frequently+Asked+Questions
-Chris