Wiki page for country

Paul W. Frields stickster at
Thu Jul 8 20:43:29 UTC 2010

On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 11:12:35AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Chris Tyler <chris at> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 23:23 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2010-07-02 at 23:08 -0400, Chris Tyler wrote:
> >> > Consider: we don't want someone from -- oh, let's say Canada -- showing
> >> > up, realizing that there's neither a nor a
> >> > site, and concluding that there's no one involved
> >> > with Fedora from her country (you can repeat the exercise with "us" or
> >> > any other country code in place of "ca"). At the same time, I really,
> >> > really don't want to create a new domain just to "solve" this problem.
> >>
> >> Is a domain beyond and being
> >> proposed by anyone? I'm not proposing that.
> >>
> >> ~m
> >
> > Sorry, I meant "domain" as in "subdomain":
> > foo.fedora{community,project}.org
> >
> > I see three separate things here; let me sum them up from my POV--
> >
> > - A discussion about whether should be permitted
> > to point to (the original question). The
> > argument for this include making it easy to remember where local content
> > can be found, the argument against this is that it loses the original
> > meaning attached to, that is, local community-run
> > websites outside of the scope of the main Fedora project. My opinion is
> > that this distinction is significant and should not be lost -- we should
> > not point * to resources within the main
> > space.
> >
> > - Paul pointed out during the discussion yesterday that it would also be
> > possible to create and have it point to a
> > particular resource (e.g., wiki landing page). I don't know if this was
> > an off-the-cuff observation that this is possible, or a serious proposal
> > that we do it. The other possibility, I suppose, would be
> >, if the intention is simply to create short,
> > memorable URLs. Personally, I don't consider these to be a great step
> > forward from
> >
> I missed this part sorry. Here is my view as an infrastructure person.
> Making more top level names is a bad idea for several reasons:
> A) It makes infrastructures life a little harder as we are dealing
> with DNS changes AND/OR website redirect changes.
> B) It makes search engines lives harder because they may never KNOW
> about because there is no reference in the
> right spots for it.
> C) I have heard that for a branding perspective it weakens the brand
> in the mind of the reader. The brands we are trying to promote is
> fedoracommunity and fedoraproject. Putting countries, languages,
> lefthanded/righthanded before that makes those to seem more important
> than the ideas project and community.
> Thus from an infrastructure view, I think we would much prefer to deal
> with<*> than adding more
> <*> names.

To clear up a couple things that I saw questions on in this thread:

* The existence of is, in part, premised on
  relieving our sponsor, Red Hat, of some risk.  It's the same kind of
  risk that requires our wiki to avoid giving out specific information
  on the dreaded $ZOMG_CODECS.  To paraphrase my discussions with Red
  Hat Legal that led to our creating this domain, the very domain name
  itself helps indicate that "the Fedora Project" (not an actual legal
  entity, so it's fair to read this as "Red Hat," since Daddy
  Shadowman assumes all our legal risks [thanks!]) is not responsible
  for the content at a target site.

  I think Mo had asked if the above was indeed the case.  I'd thought
  that was clear, but it's not.  I welcome suggestions on how I can
  fix that directly at the [[Local community domains]] wiki page.  I
  saw Mo saying earlier that if that was the case, some of the issues
  she had were moot.  Is that true, and which issues are left unsolved
  if so?

* In part, fc.o was also designed to relieve our small Infrastructure
  team of the responsibility to provide every single local community's
  preferred services.  They don't have enough people or time to do it.
  Since some of our Infrastructure team are volunteers that seems fair
  to me.  Setting up $SOFTWARE implies a continuing monitoring
  responsibility, security awareness and remediation, handling RFE's,
  and so forth.

* As Chris noted above, I was only saying that we have the ability to
  add * subdomains, not that it was a great
  solution -- especially not if it causes infrastructure pain and
  costs us searchability.

> That said I think the other issue we want to deal with here is how can
> we strengthen so that we can make it usable for
> groups that do not have their own infrastructure etc.

Do you have a proposal for groups that can't have their own
infrastructure?  We have many communities that do -- perhaps they
could be asked (or even incented?) to share?

Paul W. Frields                      
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717   -  -  -  -
          Where open source multiplies:

More information about the advisory-board mailing list