On 9/19/2006 7:08 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: slony1-general-bounces at gborg.postgresql.org 
>> [mailto:slony1-general-bounces at gborg.postgresql.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
>> Sent: 19 September 2006 11:44
>> To: slony1-general at gborg.postgresql.org
>> Subject: Re: [Slony1-general] Migrating From gBorg
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 04:11:19PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> > 
>> > If your conclusion is that pgFoundry is borked and we need 
>> to replace it 
>> > with something else *in general*, then let's replace it.
>> 
>> I think the conclusion is twofold:
>> 
>> 1.	pgFoundry is not sustainable in the long run, because of the
>> problems Chris raised.
> 
> Why? Who says we've gotta keep upgrading? If we need any specific new
> features in the future then there's a good chance we'd have to scratch
> our own itch anyway, regardless of the status of the original project.
> 
>> 2.	We need something _right now_, because it's plain that gborg
>> isn't a reasonable holding pattern any more.
> 
> Gborg is as secure as any of our other sites again. Believe it or not it
> really was a freak set of circumstances that led to the outage - and
> provisions have and are being put in place to prevent a recurrance.

And that exactly still makes me uncomfortable.

Dave, the questions I raised on -core were the result of concerns and 
discussion of people on IRC. Fact is that the problematic point of my 
question was simply ignored and I kept getting no answers at all until 
there was a positive answer available. Now people, who don't even answer 
questions unless they can answer them positively, aren't usually those 
who point out existing problems ahead of time.

Second, maybe people need to know what those provisions, that are put 
into place, are. Right now, as I understood it, the plan is that you 
have full access to everything. But Marc made clear that this is only 
for emergencies and as long as he is somehow reachable, he's going to do 
the work. Which means, that the only backup person we have is kept away 
as far as possible, instead of actually making sure he/she can perform 
the task in case of emergency just as swift as the main person. This 
strikes me as dumb of a plan as having no plan at all, sorry. This isn't 
designed to serve as a backup in case of emergency, this is designed to 
reinforce the status quo.

I originally asked for developing a policy or a guideline how our 
mission critical services and people _should_ be backed up. Must have 
been my German accent, but instead of getting anywhere into that 
direction, everyone was explaining that others don't do better either, 
how we are doing things and then went off changing details. Everyone got 
lost in the details again, instead of thinking about the big picture.


Jan

-- 
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #