On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:34 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 02:31 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > FWIW, one vendor doesn't "own" all the infrastructure. We're
> > a pretty
> > diverse group as far as infrastructure goes with several
> > sponsors. It's
> > something we've been working on for some time.
> >
> > Yes and that is a very good thing. Thanks for that.
>
> whois fedoraproject.org
>
> one org controls the domain. If things are ugly the domain's nameservers
> are updated and control is changed.
>
> That's the ballgame.
>
>
> ----
>
> Yes, that cannot be changed without a switch to being a non-profit foundation but if the same organization controls all the servers, shutting them all down is much more
> easier.
>
Seth and I just ran through what I'd call a business continuity thought
experiment and it turns out Red Hat really does have basically total
control over everything. Even the servers we don't technically own, the
data on them belongs to Red Hat.
This is just a risk all of us (even me) takes by contributing to Fedora is
that Red Hat could shut it down (not that they'd ever want to). If you're
serious about what you're proposing (wrt spreading that out over multiple
orgs or an independent org), it'd have to come from RH itself, not FAB.
It's just not in our control.
-Mike
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
