1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1Vpncy-00021V-GV
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 08 Dec 2013 23:19:08 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1Vpnci-0003Cc-FI for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 08 Dec 2013 23:19:08 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37F4710803C0;
Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:18:59 +0000 (UTC)
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>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201312082318.43516.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.1 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
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]
0.0 TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED Exceeded time limit / deadline
X-Headers-End: 1Vpnci-0003Cc-FI
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: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 23:19:08 -0000
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
|
