From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:18:42 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.12.1-gentoo; KDE/4.10.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <52A3C8A5.7010606@gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3+AowZZS1=hAkx0KODiT-vbcRKyZaHOE2CWaJk3y5-Dw@mail.gmail.com>
	<52A4E199.3000209@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52A4E199.3000209@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201312082318.43516.luke@dashjr.org>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Dedicated server for bitcoin.org,
	your thoughts?
Precedence: list

On Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:16:09 PM Sa=EFvann Carignan wrote:
> > 1) Who pays for it? Most obvious answer: Foundation. However there's
> > currently a fairly clear line between the foundation website and the
> > bitcoin.org <http://bitcoin.org> website. I personally am fine with the
> > bitcoin foundation funding the website, it's a lot closer to the bitcoin
> > community than github. But some people might care. So next step would be
> > to contact the Foundation board and see if they're willing to fund it.
>=20
> Actually I might find way to fund it. But I needed to have ACK &
> comments from developers before anything.
>=20
> ...
> > 4) Who admins it?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> > 5) Who controls DNS for it?
>=20
> I'm not sure we'll get any change on this level. I have no idea if the
> domain is in good hands, except for the fact that nothing bad happened
> thus far. If anything, moving it to core developers (as intended when
> the domain was registered) would make more sense IMO. But again, is it
> possible, I don't know.

I don't think "core developers" should be directly in control here any more=
=20
than the Foundation should. Developers are good for development, not=20
necessarily web or server admin tasks. Only those directly involved in the=
=20
needed roles should have access IMO.

Luke