 |
 |
On 8/2/07, Ross Singer <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I suppose these are really easy to say but I still haven't seen you > asking how you can help or what you can do get this back up since the > incident (until now). In fact, nobody has. Until Jeremy's (perfectly > reasonable) point that the C4L08 planning is there, nobody has even > indicated that this is more than an inconvenience (short of the > journal site - but even then, we've come up with alternatives). I thought the site would be back up in some state earlier this week, and like you I've been busy in the meantime. Seeing that it was still down after 10 days led me to want to say something and offer to help. > I mean, it's one thing to say that 'we need to have policies and > procedures in case of emergency', it's another thing to actually > create them and approve them and implement them. I didn't say that. > Then there's the > fact that it's quite likely that our drupal instance is what was the > cause of the break-in in the first place, meaning that would have to > be addressed or the mirror site is just as vulnerable. Nobody knows this for sure, so it's only speculation, and doesn't help. "The fact that it's quite likely"? > I guess my point is, I don't see much point in criticizing the > all-volunteer effort and donated server space that has gone into > code4lib.org now. My goal isn't to criticize (I understand that it might sound like it is). I would just mainly like to see something go back up soon. > Being complainy is counterproductive, honestly. If we > need to fix the governance issues, then let's do it. But don't assume > they'll be taken care of yesterday. I'm not complaining about governance issues. Did I use the word "governance"? I want to see the site back up and can help if need be. It's impossible to know if I can help get the site back up if I don't know why it isn't back up already. -Dan