If anyone is opposed to any of these things, please say so:
(1) adding database administration staff;
(2) not buying premium name-brand equipment or any equipment with e.g.
BIOS-to-JTAG back doors;
(3) opposing the TPP portions deleterious to movement interests;
(4) opposing the recently omnibus-enacted CISA and its Chinese counterpart;
(5) caching cited references at Foundation expense under volunteer review;
(6) re-evaluating the FTE cost of supporting the different varieties of
JavaScript on the different varieties of browsers on the different
varieties of platforms including O(N^2) structures like cross-browser
copy/paste. I think Visual Editor is sucking up the oxygen in Foundation
engineering at the moment, leaving the lengthy community backlog mostly in
the lurch; and
(7) funding the Foundation Engineering Community backlog, and lengthening
it from 10 items to 20.
I am also fascinated by the discussion about whether a Florida law
selection trumps an advertised election, but more interested in why Kevin
wrote that I don't understand the Foundation mission. I proposed years ago
that all Board meetings' open sessions should be live-streamed and
recorded. The Foundation does that for monthly meetings, why not the Board
too?
Regards,
Jim
On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, December 20, 2015, Brian Wolff
<bawolff(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','bawolff@gmail.com');>> wrote:
If you want to get Dispenser his hard disk space,
you should take it
up with the labs people, or at the very least some thread where it
would be on-topic.
The labs people are so understaffed that two extremely important anti-spam
bots recently had to be taken offline for much longer than in recent years.
I propose Foundation management allocate the necessary resources and
recommend the hiring of sufficient personnel and purchasing of sufficient,
non NSA-compatible (i.e., discount and homebrew style) equipment
to properly support both existing infrastructural bots and similar projects
such as Dispenser's reflinks cache.
I would also like to propose that the Foundation oppose the TPP provisions
deleterious to our interests, and that this position be endorsed on the
Public Policy list.
Then by definition it wouldn't be a
third-party spam framework if WMF
was running it.
I am not proposing that the WMF take the bots over, just meet their
necessary service level requirements.
Sincerely,
Jim