I always read Domas's posts, because they raise my spirits :) On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote: Why are we revisiting something from 2007-08 financial planning two years after it happened and 15 months after the final report? Putting aside the unnecessary bad faith and challenges to the foundation's integrity: I find this all exciting - planning for significant tech budget support, possible major sponsorships (I've always hoped we would one day find multiple sources for long-term in-kind support of servers and bandwidth), &c. I would simply like to see more open discussion of what our perfect-world tech dreams are, and how to pursue what sorts of sponsorships. We're going to get into a lot of these issues as a community, during the Strategic Planning process this year, so it will be especially helpful if people who've worked on Plans and related prioritizing + analysis are willing to share their knowledge of how the planning process currently works. Measuring project health, and being able to compare monthly or quarterly projections against actual measures, would be helpful for all sorts of feedback within the projects. Cool; what's the best way to observe the high water mark, and how the systems are holding up? SJ

Looks like a Nov spike, but such a steady rise in year to year traffic that the next Jan is already higher... was that similar last year? On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote: Because there isn't enough data on the mistakes that are being made today. 15 months ago, there was "oh, the dumps will be fixed real soon now" and "that money which wasn't spent will be spent in 2008-09". But today we know "no, 15 months later they still aren't fixed" and "no, that money will get rolled into the general budget where it won't even be spent". And there's not even an acknowledgment by the board that it made a huge mistake. Maybe there's an acknowledgment privately. There is some evidence of that. I don't know. I tend to take people at their word when they say publicly that everyone is doing a great job. I tend to take people at their word when they say publicly that they want foundation decisions discussed publicly. Maybe I should just chalk it up as a bunch of lies. But then, there's really little incentive for me to do that.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't think you've been following the dump situation for the past three years. Maybe there are others on this list who also don't understand the situation. During the last three years or so, all dumps have been produced, albeit intermittently, except the full history en.wikipedia. In order to "get all but one dump for one wiki working", the "solution" was primarily to 1) throw more hardware at the problem and 2) stop even trying to produce the en.wikipedia full history dump. What more I would ask for is to fix the actual problem. That means redesigning the dump system, which was not designed for such large amounts of data, and needed to be rewritten three years ago (when the WMF plan was to simply throw more hardware at the situation, which they didn't even do). One or more people are apparently working on this. I haven't seen any redesign plans or progress reports though, so I have my doubts, not that one or more people aren't actually working on this, but as to whether or not it's going to get done. Maybe if we could get a report on the status of the redesign, the plans for the redesign, etc., at least those doubts might be allayed, and this would become an example of a past mistake. But it still would be worth talking about.

Samuel Klein wrote: Planning with 20/20 hindsight is always soooo much more accurate? ;-) Ec