Yes. OSU has said that they have the infrastructure in place to give out
accounts. The question is just how they should determine on an ongoing
basis WHO to give an account to. I don't think we want to make Ryan
have to figure out if a random person that emails him has the backing of
the code4lib community to be trusted with a shell account.
Didn't we just have this conversation last week? See the thread I
started "Access to code4lib server--how to work it" from Mar 21 and on
in the listserv archive of your choice. "They're now ready to start
granting other people shell access to the
machine to manage/admin apps... So the question for the community
is--how the heck should Jeremy and
Ryan determine _who_ to give shell access to?"
The general consensus (or maybe it was just my own conclusion) was that
there should be a two to three person team to begin with, that we
collectively authorize. (Not just one for sustainability if that one
leaves). Then that team can authorize other shell accounts, as per
however they decide to do it. That team _might_, if there was a good
reason, get sudo wheel (Ryan Ordway confirms this is theoretically
possible if needed). Nobody else ever would get sudo wheel.
But nobody seemed to want to step up to be that 2 or 3 person team. So,
we're back to square one I guess?
Kevin S. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Everyone seemed to agree that one or two or three
>> code4libbers were neccesary to accept responsibility as "app admin
>> coordinator" on the machine, but nobody actually volunteered to do that,
>> so we're a bit stuck. If we had a process/structure in place, and there
>> was an app you wanted installed on code4lib.org to do this, there might
>> be a way to do that---depending on what process/structure we come up
>> with. But without one...
> Are we at the point where OSU is ready to start giving out accounts?
> If so, do we need volunteers for sys admins (in addition to Ryan
> Ordway)? If we can't get one or two volunteers then maybe this
> site/machine isn't that important after all. I knew a sys admin once
> who used to say, "You have to let things break every once and awhile
> so people know how important you are."
> I think sys admins are the first thing to get set up. After those
> people are in place, then I think it's just a matter of someone
> saying, "I want to maintain this application" and one of the sys
> admins can get them started. I'd be glad to step up to be an app
> admin to co-manage the Planet at that point. I mean... I guess there
> could be some formal process and the community could vote whether an
> application goes onto the machine.
> I still think if you want a production machine, though, you shouldn't
> be doing development on there. If you want to do something with
> DokuWiki put it some other place first and get it like you want it
> there. Otherwise, I think we're just recreating anvil with all the
> inherent problems that an open/development environment will entail.
> Of course, making that decision can fall to the sys admins if the
> community doesn't have a preference (they'll be the ones who get to
> pick up the pieces anyway).
> My 2 cents...
> There are two kinds of people in the world: those who believe there
> are two kinds of people and those who know better.
Digital Services Software Engineer
The Sheridan Libraries
Johns Hopkins University
rochkind (at) jhu.edu