On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 02:42:13PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Previously Rob Levin wrote:
> > > I think the Debian project benefits from the cross- fertilization,
> > > from the exposure to other groups and other projects.
> > I'm not sure we get cross-fertilization from being on OPN. It is
> > convenient to have lots of free software related channels on a single
> > network but then again pretty much all clients have decent multi-server
> > support these days.
> I agree. This thread began with the question of which IRC network we
> should point our users to. Unstated was the assumption that the main
> #debian channel should be on a large irc network at all. I wonder why we
> need one.
> We get a network of irc servers.
> They netsplit frequently due to the nature of irc.
> We already have servers, and bandwidth, and it would seem to could
> create a small, stable irc network that could handle our modest load
> of ~700 concurrent clients. I don't know how well irc scales; could a
> single server handle that load?
Probably, if the machine wasn't too busy. But you need to consider
something about the general unreliability of network connectivity; the
single-point-of-failure model suggests that using just one server is a
bad idea, and more are a maintenance problem.
There's also the question of trusting irc daemons enough to run them on
> We can avoid the necessary work of keeping the network running and
> maintained and dealing with the attacks and bad behavior that irc
> engenders, as the network has people who do that.
> As has been mentioned, we have debian developers who do that work on
> OPN and other networks already. So we know how to do it and we have
> people who could do it if they desired to do so.
> A single server would be less of a target than an entire irc network.
No, a single server would be a much easier target than an entire IRC
network; I think that's a more relevant data point. Plus this could
risk other Debian equipment.
> Part of a larger community, cross-fertilization, etc.
> What Wichert said, plus see all the politics that has been dragged
> into this thread by people who seem to be part of some different,
> conflicting communities in addition to their membership in the debian
I can't and wouldn't argue with this point, however.
> So I don't see much benefit to us in using a large network managed by
> someone else, unless politics and apathy keep us from hosting our own.
I think practicality is against this idea.
That said, I'm not impressed by any of our options. I like
OpenProjects; I used to do an admin stint there, and left (was asked to
leave, politely and fairly) mostly because of a lack of time to devote
to it. I'm not pleased with the turn it's been taking, or the
directions Rob has been leading it in, and I've let him know this
several times; he's been very unresponsive to my concerns, in his
very-polite don't-see-what-the-problem-is way. But:
- Switching networks without some significant advantage stinks of politics
too much for me.
- It increases the chances we'll have to do it again, and we lose the
stability that has made the network useful.
- While I have my issues with Rob, I have very few issues with the
day-to-day running of the network.
OFTC is too much of a wild card, which I think is clear to any detached
observer from reading the traffic in this thread. I suggest that we
stay where we are.
And that also said, in particular I completely disagree with Rob's
decisions to create yet another nonprofit organization, and to attempt
to balance its books from solicitation on IRC. I've told him so a
number of times. But at this time I don't think his unresponsiveness
is enough of a hazard to justify moving Debian away from OpenProjects.
I'm tempted to start shipping the Debian BitchX packages with the
fundraising bot ignored by default, although that would be too abusive
of my maintainership to take seriously.
(Yes, I'll still call it OPN....)
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer