Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <saivann@gmail.com>) id 1VpoYo-0003iT-JV
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:18:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.223.171; envelope-from=saivann@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ie0-f171.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1VpoYn-0004MJ-QY
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:18:54 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id ar20so5044150iec.30
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:18:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.42.47.201 with SMTP id p9mr11880067icf.4.1386548328513;
	Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:18:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([199.192.237.161])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p14sm11446353igr.7.2013.12.08.16.18.46
	for <multiple recipients>
	(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
	Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52A5053C.5050801@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:48:12 -0500
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sa=EFvann_Carignan?= <saivann@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
References: <52A3C8A5.7010606@gmail.com>	<1795f3067ba3fcdd0caf978cc59ff024.squirrel@fruiteater.riseup.net>	<52A435EA.7090405@gmail.com>	<201312081237.24473.luke@dashjr.org>	<CANAnSg2OrmQAcZ+cZdtQeADicH3U29QOgYPfP1AQhOMP6+P1wg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAAS2fgR0khyJxmz9c2Oc87hOFgiNuiPJuaeugGajdo_EcKEW9w@mail.gmail.com>	<CANEZrP3+AowZZS1=hAkx0KODiT-vbcRKyZaHOE2CWaJk3y5-Dw@mail.gmail.com>	<52A4E199.3000209@gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0ATM0BWKJQfodik6X0=xeU853rVrS2A8V2SO36GDm_gQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0ATM0BWKJQfodik6X0=xeU853rVrS2A8V2SO36GDm_gQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(saivann[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
	See
	http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
	for more information. [URIs: bitcoin.org]
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1VpoYn-0004MJ-QY
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Dedicated server for bitcoin.org,
 your thoughts?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:18:54 -0000

>     > 4) Who admins it?
> 
>     Obviously, I thought it would be important that the server is owned by
>     someone who can be trusted, with ssh access for all core developers.
> 
> 
> That is a really bad idea.  If there is not a CLEAR answer to "who
> admins it", there will be a bunch of "I thought YOU were applying
> security patches... no, I thought YOU were..." the first time it gets
> hacked.
> 
> So, the question is:  who wants to take responsibility for keeping
> bitcoin.org <http://bitcoin.org> safe and secure?
> 
> I am not going to do that, I've got too many other things to worry
> about. It is exactly the type of thing the Foundation was setup to do,
> but if y'all want to create some other organization to do it, then
> please make it happen.
> 
> -- 
> --
> Gavin Andresen
> 

I fully agree that someone *must* be assigned to the task, otherwise
it's better keeping current hosting.

Perhaps that was implicit, but I can take this responsibility so long as
I can be replaced if required for any reason. On this regard, I agree
that the Foundation funding / owning / securing the server
infrastructure is a much better long term strategy.

This said, I also agree that it is a better idea to keep the domain and
website content independently owned and managed, for the reasons stated
by Gregory Maxwell.

If there isn't a good consensus on one of the two options I suggested, I
vote we don't lose more time on this question and keep focus with bigger
priorities.