If you do select SourceForge we'll run the hardware and network for the
community as our contribution.
The Fedora team will have 100% control over the site.
I'm actually leaving VA Software this Friday, moving up to Seattle as VP
Platform Operations for Amazon.com.
I'd be happy to admin the site and look after site ops etc independent
from VA Software.
Thoughts?
Col
Colin Bodell
CTO
VA Software
Soon to be VP Platform Operations at Amazon.com
Max Spevack wrote:
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Bill Nottingham wrote:
How do we tie it together? Do we take the savannah software?
Something else? Roll our own? (shudder)
Three options:
1. Savannah
2. DevNation
3. Sourceforge
What's the ideal? The fully open solution. What's stopping us. We
need to have enough people dedicated to making it happen and
maintaining it so that we actually have the infrastructure in place to
allow people to host/code new projects. If we can get there, then
that's superb, and we've got a fully open solution that we can show to
anyone else (like Ubuntu) who doesn't.
The realistic decision that must be made is: what's the likely
timeframe for getting Savannah deployed and useful for the Fedora
community? Is that time/cost worth it, or are we better off using one
of the other options in which a lot of the infrastructure is done for
us, but the backend isn't entirely open.
"Fedora Infrastructure" has a huge amount of stuff swirling around it,
and listening to Elliot talk, not nearly enough people who are able to
work on all of it.
