On 1/4/19 7:49 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
To help connect everyone together despite this, we have requested a
central project management service from the Infrastructure team —
probably [Taiga], although we're asking the team to also look at GitLab
for this purpose. We'll have a dedicated instance, likely hosted, and we
ask each team to have a minimum presence on that tool, whether they use
it otherwise or not. The presence should, at a minimum, indicate the
team's communication methods for synchronous and asynchronous
communication and where project information may be found if not in the
shared tool. That way, there will be an automatically-curated list of
active teams. (See <https://tree.taiga.io/discover>
for an idea of what
this would look like — imagine each project there is a Fedora team.)
Is this request public anywhere? I know we talked about it in the past,
but it would be nice to have someplace people to see the requirements
and chime in with their thoughts. I'm not sure if this would best be a
list thing or a ticket or what...
The success of our strategy depends on improvements to our
infrastructure. The Infrastructure team has limited resources, so we
need to ensure they're able to work on areas that add the most value to
This means a shift away from running all layers of the
stack and focusing more on application management. The goal is to have
the Infra team administering applications, not low-level infrastructure.
I am not sure if this really follows from the goal above.
Sure, low level infrastructure takes some time, but I don't think it's
all that much, and also some of it's unavoidable.
(Even if that makes the team name confusing — sorry!) We want
in our applications and deployment. We want drive-by contributors to be
able to realistically contribute to the infrastructure team.
Sure, those are all good things, but I don't understand what it is that
you want us to do here. (more below)
We also talked about GitHub. Ideally, we want everything to be on
source services (e.g. Taiga, Pagure, or GitLab). But, as a pragmatic
matter, we recognize that GitHub has a huge network effect — there are
millions of users and developers there, and millions of open source and
free software projects hosted there, including software that's
fundamental to the Fedora operating system. We'd like better integration
and syncing with tools like Pagure to give access to that network effect
on all-free software, but we also know that there isn't a lot of
developer time to make and maintain those kind of features. Therefore,
we're willing to accept people in Fedora hosting their subprojects on
GitHub. We've got to focus on what we do that's unique (and only do
things which are unique when we have a special need to meet our project
goals). Git hosting is not one of those things.
Sure, in infrastructure for applications we have left hosting decisions
up to the people doing the work. Thats why there are some of our infra
apps on github.
#agreed The Council supports greater efficiency in the infrastructure
to allow more to be done, even when this means that we move away from
self-hosted or self-maintained infrastructure. (+9,0,-0)
#agreed The Fedora Project wants to advance free and open source
software and as a pragmatic matter we recognize that some infrastructure
needs may be best served by using closed source or non-free tools today.
Therefore the Council is willing to accept closed source or non-free
tools in Fedora's infrastructure where free and open source tools are
not viable or not available. (+9,0,-0)
So, what do you mean running non free tools "in Fedora's infrastructure"
here? As noted above we always said upstreams for applications or the
like can do as the people doing the work decide, but does this mean we
should (for example) consider running oracle db if we feel it would be
better for our database loads? Can you clarify here? We don't currently
run any non free software actually in infrastructure.
#action contyk, FESCo to work with Infra to examine current
applications and determine: 1. which applications can be moved out of
the datacenter immediately or in the short term,
Moved out of the datacenter to... where? Cloud instances?
Hosted solutions? Based on what critera?
This is going to cause a lot of short term work for... well, everyone.
Especially in the case of things we don't spend much time on now, since
everyone will have to adjust their workflow and we will have to spend
time migrating things.
2. Which applications
have industry-standard open source or proprietary alternatives that we
could move to.
I'm not coming up with too long a list here. Most of our apps are highly
specialised for distro making, but:
* fedocal (which we pretty much spend no time on)
* pagure (which we want to keep? or no?)
* nagios (pagerduty?)
* magazine /communityblog ( wordpress.org? but there's very little time
spent on these too)
* mailing lists (discourse?)
* openstack (The big consumer here is copr... if it could move to the
cloud or somewhere and we didn't need a openstack I would be very happy).
I think things like koji are particularly ill suited to move anywhere
since we need to run Fedora on the builders, they have to run virt, and
we have lots of arches that aren't commonly available in cloud.
Thanks for the update and discussion on this!