[fedora-websites] Issue #936: Retire fedoracommunity.org

[Ryan Lerch]

ryanlerch reported a new issue against the project: `fedora-websites` that you are
following:
``
fedoracommunity.org has an old style, and requires a lot of effort to update any of the
data on it.

Is there any value in keeping this as a standalone site? or should we move this content to
the wiki, where it can be more easily updated and kept up to date.

@mattdm @bex 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/936

[Brian Exelbierd (bex)]

bex added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I'd rather see this content migrated to the docs site than the wiki.  I don't want
to lose the domain name, but for today, replacing this with a redirect to the docs site
version of this content would not upset me at all.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/936

[Stephen J Smoogen]

smooge added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
We won't lose the domain name. At the moment Infrastructure is looking to put the
podcasts and similar tools there. These are tools which do not work with SSL and we
can't put them in getfedora or fedoraproject.org because HSTS requires all domains and
subdomains of those to be using SSL. 
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/936

[Brian Exelbierd (bex)]

bex added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I am glad we won't lose the domain name.  I'd like to see what we can do to make
our stuff all SSL and not put things that are "project" in that
"community" domain

``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/936

[Paul W. Frields]

pfrields added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I agree, migrating the content where it can be more easily maintained is a good idea. The
2nd level domain could continue to be used to serve one of its original purposes --
delineate clearly between sites that need to be maintained by the Websites and
Infrastructure team, and those that aren't.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/936

[Brian Exelbierd (bex)]

bex added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
>  I agree, migrating the content where it can be more easily maintained
> is a good idea. The 2nd level domain could continue to be used to serve one of its
> original purposes -- delineate clearly between sites that need to be maintained by the
> Websites and Infrastructure team, and those that aren't.
>  
I don't think this should be a defining line at all.  I don't think everything in
fedoraproject.org should be the required responsibility of the website team, nor do I
think that everything not in that domain should be prohibited to them.

Let's use these to mark project resources as different from those in provided by other
sub-communities.  It isn't technology or people, it is this.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/936

[Stephen J Smoogen]

smooge added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I think it needs to be the defining line for a different reason. We are looking to
outsource various services from the Fedora Infrastructure and Website teams. Users do not
know when something is outsourced and usually feel that if it is fedoraproject.org,
IT/Websites run it and are responsible for it.

Things like the podcast site, ask.fpo, etc are not run by us. This leads to regular
confusion where we can't fix a problem, but we are held responsible (aka
privacy/gpdr/logs/analytics/etc). Having them in a clearly seperated domain space makes it
easier to explain to the user why they need to go to location X to get it fixed versus
going to us and us going 'ok will try to find the community team running it'.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/936

[Brian Exelbierd (bex)]

bex added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
I am very concerned about the idea of declaring via naming all non-fully self-hosted
things to not be part of the project.  The issue of how to get things fixed, gdpr, etc.
should not be related via domain name.  These are some of the core issues we are trying to
fix with the Taiga instance.

The name should be there to signal what the thing is and for marketing reasons, imho.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/936

[Ryan Lerch]

ryanlerch added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
>  We won't lose the domain name. At the moment Infrastructure is
> looking to put the podcasts and similar tools there. These are tools which do not work
> with SSL and we can't put them in getfedora or fedoraproject.org because HSTS requires
> all domains and subdomains of those to be using SSL.
>  
Are there any discussions that cover what is planned here? or just more ad-hoc plans?

I'd love to come up with a solid plan here for what to do with these three domains
actually. (getfedora.org, fedoraproject.org and fedoracommunity.org). There is this oldish
ticket too:
https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/756 which covers potentially having a frontpage
for the "project" in addition to getfedora as the place to, well get fedora
(i.e. the distro). Previously fedorproject.org was going to be hubs, but since hubs is
dead (RIP), we really should come up with a way to sort out all this content.


``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/936

[Stephen J Smoogen]

smooge added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
More ad-hoc plans. 

Trying to proxy podcasts to have SSL requires setups which are different from how we proxy
our other websites. They also require knowing how the podcast software works and if the
podcast software even works with SSL tunneling. This would take an unknown amount of time
on our part to bundle and set up things. Since the Council has already paid for an
outsourced service we needed to find a domain which wasn't preloaded in
IE/Firefox/Chrome's HSTS only lists. 

*.getfedora.org and *.fedoraproject.org are preloaded in Chrome/IE/Firefox as requiring
SSL. However, *.fedoracommunity.org does not which made it a good fit for this problem. I
should have checked with websites before going with this plan, but I was trying not to be
the "No" or "Not for N months and you need to jump through these
hoops" that I usually am.
``

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/936