On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 04:06:44PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > On 11/26/20 3:19 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > > > > I think this FTP discussion and the above share something, which is a > > presumption that there are things that are just sitting around and > > that don't require any attention. I think this is false, and I would > > like to suggest that just about everyone in this discussion knows that > > to be the case, /but is forgetting it because the costs are > > externalized/. > > +1 to pretty much all of your message except for this last bit (italics > mine). Just because we don't mention the costs doesn't mean we're not > aware of them. (Though so far there's /still/ been no estimate of > those costs, so basically we're left to guess. And that might be part > of why we don't say much about them.) Let's also remember that costs need not always be measured in dollars. Given that this whole adventure started with the tools team asking Roman/the IESG to run a community consensus process, my operating model is that there is a morale cost to having the team (volunteers and staff alike) put the work in to move the FTP service over to the new generation of infrastructure and continue running it when "nobody uses it". I'm happy to be proven wrong by better data, but would prefer to not be treating these individuals as mindless cogs in a machine. -Ben
