summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2015/05-28.mdwn
blob: 9c1bf2e9100ce8f7b9520a23f88d47ec73c2908d (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
Date is 2015-05-29, times are UTC+10.  
[[!format txt """
--- Log opened Fri May 29 06:56:31 2015
06:56 < whot_> good morning
06:56 -!- You're now known as whot
06:57 -!- marcoz [~oftc-webi@c-67-190-28-99.hsd1.co.comcast.net] has joined #xf-bod
06:59 <+egbert> good evening!
06:59 < marcoz> good afternoon egbert 
06:59 <+keithp> howdy
07:00 < danvet> hi all
07:00 -!- robclark [~robclark@c-50-187-42-4.hsd1.ma.comcast.net] has joined #xf-bod
07:01 < whot> mupuf, agd5f: ping
07:01 < marcoz> whot:  did you guys see my email regarding Juliet's proposal?
07:01 < agd5f> hi
07:02 <+egbert> marcoz: that you want to discuss it today?
07:03 <+egbert> i saw that one.
07:03 <+keithp> marcoz: just reviewed; if Brian is willing to mentor (along with perhaps some help from Laura?), then it looks reasonable to me
07:03 < whot> hmm, I don't seem to have that mail
07:03 < whot> weird
07:03  * whot is back in 2 min
07:03 <+keithp> whot: EVOC Application
07:04 < marcoz> egbert: if possible.   her proposed start was this Monday (3 days ago). I don't want to drop the ball any further
07:04 <+egbert> i've got three: Juliet's, marcoz reply and a mail to the board about discussiong ot today.
07:06 < marcoz> i have no contact info for Brian and Paul, so I need some follow up there.  whot, can/should we add this to today's agenda?
07:06 < marcoz> Brian and Laura rather
07:06 < whot> yeah, that's fine
07:06 < robclark> marcoz, I guess you are looking for REDACTED and REDACTED ?
07:07 < marcoz> where'd you see that?
07:07 <+egbert> MLs probably ...
07:07 < marcoz> thanks robclark 
07:08 < whot> right, so agenda is then evoc, expo, gsoc update and SPI, anything I'm missing?
07:08 < robclark> np
07:09 < robclark> yeah, just harvested from mesa-devel list
07:10 < whot> marcoz: want to start with evoc then?
07:10 < marcoz> sounds good.
07:10 < marcoz> ok, has everyone seen the proposal at this point?
07:10 <+egbert> i have, yes.
07:10 < danvet> yup
07:11 < robclark> I've seen it.. probably I'd defer to brian and laura's judgment about whether it is worthwhile..
07:12 < marcoz> Yea, now that I haave actual contact info, I should ping them and get their feedback
07:13 <+keithp> can we avoid needing to delay until another bod mtg to resolve this?
07:14 < marcoz> can we vote via email after we get feedback from Brian and Laura? i'm writing the email now
07:14 < whot> I can't judge the proposal but if B/L are happy with it then I think we should go ahead
07:14 <+keithp> agreed
07:14 < robclark> I'll put it this way, conditional +1 based on brian/laura's feedback ;-)
07:14 < danvet> me too
07:14 <+egbert> same here.
07:14 <+keithp> sounds good to me as well
07:15 < whot> ok, let's do this: if B/L have a definitive ACK on the proposal, we go ahead. if there are doubts, we'll revisit
07:15 <+egbert> what do we actually need from Brian and Laura?
07:15 < robclark> sounds good
07:15 < whot> can I have votes for that pls (formal ones)?
07:15 < robclark> egbert, go/no-go
07:15 <+egbert> that they are willing and able to mentor this?
07:15 <+keithp> +12
07:15 <+egbert> ok.
07:15 < robclark> (where "go" implies that at least one of 'em can mentor)
07:16 < whot> yes, it implies that they think the proposal is good, can be done, will be done and that between them they can provide mentorship
07:17 < whot> +1 from me, obviously
07:17 <+egbert> +1 
07:17 < danvet> +1
07:17 < robclark> +1
07:17 < marcoz> +1
07:18 < whot> vote carried, thanks
07:18 < marcoz> thanks guys. I'll send the email here shortly
07:18 < whot> thanks
07:18 < whot> ok, moving on, agd5f - want to give a GSoC update?
07:21 < whot> ok, holding that for now. egbert, any updates re expo?
07:23 <+egbert> yes
07:23 < robclark> fyi, ajax has actually seen expo and knows roughly where it is..  so without his knowledge I'll volunteer him to help for any physical access needed (or I can be an errand boy myself if needed) ;-)
07:23 <+egbert> apparently ajax still knows a bit about mit and oddly jg contacted me after reading the minutes.
07:24 <+egbert> jg seems to be eager to help. i had some exchange with him but then i got side tracked.
07:24 <+egbert> jg = Jim Gettys - forthe youngsters ;p
07:25 <+egbert> so i need to get back to him that he can help me to establish a contact to mit.
07:26 < whot> ok, that sorts out the physical side, what do we do with all the bits running on it?
07:26 <+egbert> so we have 3 people in the area who how would be able to help with physical access.
07:26 <+egbert> 2 of them even know where to go ;)
07:27 < robclark> heheh
07:27 <+egbert> robclark: ever met jg?
07:27 < robclark> I've seen him at some conf or another.. don't think ever introduced
07:27 < robclark> so he probably doesn't know who I am
07:28 <+egbert> ok, so it's time ;)
07:28 < robclark> heheh
07:28 < robclark> well, if you need 'feet on the ground' w/ physical access, feel free to enlist me
07:28 <+egbert> you never know. he seems to read stuff from time to time.
07:28 <+egbert> robclark: sounds good :) thanks!
07:29 < robclark> np
07:32 < whot> where do we migrate the bits? the machine is still past its lifetime by now
07:32 <+egbert> we need a new machine.
07:33 <+egbert> i'd say, something small (ie 1u) would do.
07:33 <+egbert> (jg believes we should have a bigger machine so we can use it for hosting if something on the west coast goes bad)
07:34 < whot> what services are on expo?
07:35 <+egbert> MLs + membership systems + a few backups and copies of data.
07:36 < whot> the board ml or xorg mls too? i thought the latter are fdo now?
07:36 <+egbert> all this can be hosted on the smallest box you can get today.
07:36 <+egbert> the board and member mls.
07:36 < whot> i'm tempted to even get a VM or something, I don't think we need a physical machine
07:36 < robclark> I guess the first question, is do we have any sort of load / IO / net stats for expo.. that could help judge how big a box we need (but I guess it can't be much).. the other question is if we want it to host mirrors but that is probably more a bandwidth issue..
07:37 < robclark> (ie. not sure how MIT would feel about that.. but then again I've heard they have pretty killer bandwidth..)
07:38 <+egbert> well, if we get heavy traffic (download, git etc) then we want a bigger machine. what we have right should not amount to too much.
07:38 <+egbert> i would guess spam makes up for the most traffic.
07:39 <+egbert> robclark: we went for mit for the bandwidth. but at the time we paid them some money (wasn't much)
07:39 < whot> before we get too carried away: who's going to admin the box if we put more than the absolute minimum on it?
07:40 <+egbert> whot: what do you call 'absolute minimum'?
07:40 <+egbert> what we have right now?
07:40 < robclark> think so
07:41 < whot> yeah, board ml, voting, membership
07:42 <+egbert> i can help out (if someone whould join) with the absolute minimum.
07:42 <+egbert> since the 'more' is not well defined and open end, i'd be careful with this ;)
07:43 < robclark> well, I can always help with monkey-work.. although I'm pretty sure there are others who are better at sysadm stuff..
07:43 < whot> I guess having multiple ppl with access is already a good start :)
07:44 < whot> so, IMO if we're hosting the minimum only we don't need a physical machine
07:44 <+egbert> whot: the admin work would be the same i guess.
07:45 < robclark> so if you just need people in different timezones for emergencies then whot/egbert/myself probably cover enough timezones..
07:45 <+egbert> whot: where would you get a vm? from one of the commercial providers?
07:45 < robclark> agreed, if just bare minimum, then vm..
07:45 < robclark> (does mit have any vm hosting?)
07:45 <+egbert> ok, i can ask that.
07:45 < whot> egbert: the admin work is the same, but having a physical box we need to think about goes away
07:46 < whot> egbert: yeah, commercial provider, but I have no idea on pricing, etc. atm
07:46 < whot> but if MIT does it that's fine too
07:46 <+egbert> whot: yes, of course. 
07:47 < robclark> do we actually make ongoing payments to mit?  The thing ajax sent me sounded kinda like yearly fee (iirc) although not sure if we had some special deal..
07:47 < whot> plus, a physical box is a legal asset for the SPI move, a VM isnt :)
07:47 < whot> so one less item to list
07:47 <+egbert> robclark: we don't.
07:47 < robclark> (and part (b) of that question, is that simply because we've been forgetting :-P)
07:47 <+egbert> apparently they stopped billing us several years ago.
07:48 < robclark> heh, hopefully that was on purpose and not just due to lack of contact
07:48 <+egbert> either that or they stopped bothering as we never paid in time ;)
07:48 <+keithp> not paying them turned out to save us lots of money
07:48 <+egbert> too much effort to keep track of this for the amount.
07:49  * alanc remembers voting to end the mit hosting at some point and telling stukreit to stop sending them money
07:49  * alanc doesn't remember what was supposed to happen to the machines after that
07:49 < whot> ok, so what's our immediate agenda then? we have boots nearby so we can pull it out, but first we need to move it somewhere
07:49 <+egbert> alanc: i believe this referred to the sun machines.
07:49 < robclark> heheh, maybe they just unplugged the mgmt console and forgot to unplug the other cable :-P
07:49 <+alanc> (we actually had three boxes there at one point, since Sun donated two machines to sit with expo)
07:51 <+egbert> alanc: right. this was a really sad story.
07:51 <+egbert> just checked: the hosting fee was usd 550/y
07:52 <+egbert> in 2007
07:52 < robclark> fwiw, current fee is a bit less (assuming 1-2U).. http://ist.mit.edu/colocation?category=15
07:53 < robclark> hopefully they don't have a big bill waiting for us when we come to pick up the machine
07:54 <+egbert> robclark: you never know ;p
07:54 <+egbert> robclark: and they will collect it from the guy who shows at the door ;p
07:55 < robclark> well, either way, we should probably make sure that we have all the data copied off of it before someone shows up in person, just in case
07:55 <+egbert> i've got most of it on a usb stick. i will probably mirror it regularly.
07:55 < robclark> k, sounds good
07:56  * whot still needs to run the backup
07:56 < whot> but once that's done we have it on two continents at least
07:56 <+egbert> whot: yes. please.
07:56 < robclark> I guess if we still have current email addr for everyone who has accounts on it, wouldn't hurt to send around an email and give folks a chance to backup their $HOME
07:57  * robclark has no idea how many users accounts are on there
07:57 <+egbert> robclark: if i find some time on the weekend i will check how much there is.
07:57 < robclark> k, thx
07:57 <+egbert> datawise.
07:58 < whot> who will look into server replacement pricing?
07:58 <+egbert> you mean if we are looking for a physiacal machine?
07:58 < whot> both, I guess
07:58 <+egbert> we should see if we can get one donated.
07:59 < robclark> I guess it wouldn't hurt to see if we can get offers for donation, for the physical machine case.. I guess in the end it comes down to what the fee is for mit (ie. if we are supposed to be paying them $600/yr that would make vm much more attractive)
07:59 < whot> true. but even then we may have a new fee once we put the new box in
07:59 < robclark> right
08:00 < whot> robclark: do you want to look into VM pricing?
08:00 < robclark> I guess we have a few representitives here from hw makers..  wouldn't hurt to ask them if they want to sponsor something..
08:00 < whot> fsvo "want" :)
08:00 < robclark> I can poke around see what going rates are for vm..
08:01 < whot> thanks
08:01 < robclark> np
08:01 <+egbert> guys, we are past the hour already.
08:01 < danvet> yeah I can ping around too
08:02 <+egbert> which means midnight here.
08:02 < danvet> but I'll be on vacation next 2 weeks, so maybe better if mupuf starts ;-)
08:02 <+egbert> can we call it a day/night?
08:02 < whot> I think that's the immediate agenda: figure out vm pricing and think of possible donations for a physical box. shouldn't announce that until we know whether we go vm/physical so we don't end u pwith a box we don't want :)
08:02 < danvet> not sure if vm would be sponsorable too
08:02 < whot> probably not, but we can figure out if we can manage to solicit donations again
08:03 < whot> haven't done so for years, but we can still do it
08:03 <+egbert> danvet: exactly. it's much easier to get a machine.
08:03 <+egbert> guys, i would like to leave.
08:03 < agd5f> I can ping around too, but I'd rather wait until we've decided on physical vs. VM first
08:03 < whot> that's all for today I think, SPI was on the agenda but I didn't see mupuf's changes show up on the list yet
08:04 < robclark> so I guess we didn't cover GSoC or SPI.. not sure if there is anything important to cover on the former.. would be nice to not let the latter drag on too much..
08:04 < agd5f> no real updates on gsoc at this point
08:04 < robclark> agd5f, I guess we can get a rough idea for vm vs physical once we figure out vm cost vs actual hosting cost (ie. not being a deadbeat)
08:04 < whot> agd5f: ok, thanks
08:04 < whot> ok, I guess we can call it closed for today. thanks for attending, see you again in two weeks
"""]]