On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 03:48:43PM +0000, Luca Filipozzi wrote: > > If you're instead generally expressing a fear that once we migrate to > > Salsa, we'll be in a local optimum that is going to be considered good > > enough to be worth bothering migrating to anything else, then I would > > argue that the problem wouldn't be having moved to Salsa as an OIDC > > provider, and rather that the next step that is proposed wouldn't be > > bringing enough compelling advantages to the problem at hand. > > Indeed, a local optimum is worrisome. If you mean that we should block a workable proposal for incremental improvement in case it turns out to be good enough, I think I don't want that. What we have /now/ is unsustainable, to the point that I'm afraid and ashamed of keeping some of the services I'm responsible for online. We have come up a proposal that could be deployed in a couple of weeks of off-working-hours straightforward work, with no need to deploy any new infrastructural component. It can solve the urgent issues. Then we can talk about a better, long-term, technically excellent, actively supported and sustainable solution, and by all means, I'd like to see that. We could also do a post-mortem of why we have had what sounded like a good solution for more than one year and never managed to get it deployed. Not for pointing fingers: for avoiding getting in such a stalled situation in the future. I am not at all in the mood for any of that, though, while I find myself starting responding to users' requests for help by apologising for the state things are. Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature