should people.ubuntu.com be people.canonical.com
mantha at ubuntu.com
Mon Sep 17 19:35:17 BST 2007
On 9/17/07, Stephan Hermann <sh at sourcecode.de> wrote:
> Hi Sarah et al,
> Sarah Hobbs schrieb:
> > I'd like to concur with the above, here.
> > If it's a question of trust, remember that those of ubuntu-dev can
> > upload to the ubuntu archive, and some of their code is in main, which
> > core devs have uploaded.
> > It seems that this is supposed to be analogous to people.debian.org, due
> > to the naming. Giving the members of ubuntu-dev shell access would fit
> > into that idea.
> > It really is a royal pain to have MOTU's resources spread across
> > multiple servers all over the world (and no one address to point to, for
> > the resources)
> To be honest, I don't see the use of people.ubuntu.com.
> When you declare it like "people.debian.org", it's not. When you declare
> it like "people.redhat.com", most probably it's the same.
> On people.redhat.com, only employees are allowed to have access, no
> outsiders (at least this was the policy in 2001, and I think it didn't
My point was that people.ubuntu.com should belong to the Ubuntu
community as a whole, not just Canonical. A Canonical-specific
resource should be housed at a canonical.com address, IMO.
> Having MOTU resources widespread, is a bad thing, I agree, but using
> company (and
> AFAIK people.ubuntu.com is restricted to people with canonical network
> access through
> vpn or whatever) resources, I don't like it either.
That's what I'd like to see changed, if possible.
> Having something like people.ubuntu-motu.org is what I would prefer.
> Hopefully, we can find a sponsor who is sponsoring MOTU this resource
> (hello HP, Dell, IBM, SUN).
But now you've created a whole new name space with ubuntu-motu.org and
you've separated MOTU from Core Devs. I think a resource that makes
collaboration between *all* Ubuntu developers better is the way to go.
> Even if I do like the idea of having sponsored everything from Canonical
> Inc., I do dislike the idea of being someone
> who can't find other sponsors for the MOTU project.
> I do appreciate the Canonical Inc. commitment to the MOTUs, means
> having Daniel be the MOTU Canonical2Community&ViceVersa spokesman is
> very good,
> and I'm glad that his employer gave him the opportunity to work with
> MOTUs fulltime,
> but I think it is also very important that at least MOTU Team itself is
> a bit "free" of Canonicals sponsored "paid" services.
> We had tiber sponsored by Canonical in former times, right, but now MOTU
> is somehow bigger, and we could deal with resources by ourselves.
I see your point and I think it's a fairly valid one. However, I would
still say that people.ubuntu.com should be independent enough if it's
open to all developers and it shouldn't really matter who's hosting
> This is nothing against Canonical Inc. as sponsor, the opposite is the
> case. I would like to see the MOTUs
> a bit outside of the Canonical Universe regarding server resources.
> Having a server from the LoCo Team, and having a team responsible for
> the servers, outside of Canonical, is a great idea,
> but I don't think that this will help MOTU, because we are in need of
> different resources for our work, and our tools are not drupal or php.
I think only real requirement, other than being sane and secure, is
that our apps not need root access, but I could be wrong there.
More information about the ubuntu-devel