[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian presence on AWS (maybe other clouds as well) and costs handling



Hi everyone, I work with AWS as a Linux Ecosystem Solutions Architect. Please let me know how I can assist with any goals or infrastructure requirements. 

> On Jul 20, 2016, at 11:15, Marcin Kulisz <debian@kulisz.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I skimmed over cloud.d.o bug reports and it looks like some of them could be
> solved but may create additional costs on our (Debian) AWS account. Therefore I
> have some questions I'm not sure who is capable to answer (that's why DPL in
> 'to' field as well).
> 
> 1. Do we have a cap on spending we can occur on AWS? If so what is it?
> 2. Do we have somebody (individual or a group) to track above?
> 3. Do we have details like above for other cloud providers (if we actually
> having Debian accounts on them, as I'm not even sure if we do)?
> 4. Who is (if anybody) responsible for acknowledging/allocating what
> could/should or couldn't/shouldn't run on AWS due to costs, DMUP or similar?
> 
> I know that above sounds like a bureaucrat bullshit but I'm not trying to put
> any rules around it, it's just that I have no idea how it's working at the
> moment.
> As it's some kind of Debian infrastructure (even if not maintained by DSA),
> keeping some kind of open ledger would be nice and would allow people to know
> if there is a capacity for ex. their pet projects which may benefit Debian or
> for additional mirrors like asked by Charles in #698477.
> 
> Once I have some answers I'll try to start drafting something reminding
> policy and will drop it into git.debian.org:/git/cloud/cloud.git under policy
> directory so we have some kind of reference point.
> -- 
> 
> |_|0|_|                                          |
> |_|_|0|         "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam"          |
> |0|0|0|         -------- kuLa ---------          |
> 
> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3
> 3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD  58C3 38B3


Reply to: