[ckan-dev] Who is in charge of the Colorado instance?

Mon May 9 09:12:21 UTC 2011

Hi,

On 9 May 2011 10:00, Friedrich Lindenberg <friedrich.lindenberg at okfn.org> wrote:
> I get that we need to work out better processes but I think we're
> getting a bit eager here: I moved this instance to a new server last
> week, did some sanity checks but apparently I fucked up somehow. There
> is nothing in all of this that concerns the Colorado instance owner
> (Sean Hudson <sean.hudson at opencolorado.org>). I will inform once I've
> fixed the issue, or if fixing it takes longer than the expected 4
> minutes.
>
> Do we really need to embed API calls and write CREPs here?

Too late ;)  CC'ing this to ckan-dev.

But yes, I think so.  Since I've started at OKF this conversation has
come up several times, either in "who is the maintainer of site X"
(sysadmin-type questions) or "how many instances do we have of CKAN"
(marketing-type questions).

There are at least two different manually-maintained lists of
instances, possibly more, and no agreement on which one is the
"master".

It seems in this case you can fix it, but if you were on holiday that
would still not be apparent, and we'd be waiting around a bit until
someone decided to step forward in the absence of a clear answer.  If
it's possible to look it up, see it's you, know that you're on holiday
so it's OK for someone else to do it... that's more efficient.

As a side effect, having a way of contacting administrators about
security-related updates is potentially useful.

On the point of writing CEPs -- well, maybe it doesn't need a full
one, but it needs discussion IMO: it's something *I* think should be
built into CKAN, and the current (pre-CEP) way of proceeding would be
for me to mention it to James or Rufus and if they don't have a
problem, just going ahead and doing it.

I could just do that... or we could have a discussion about it first.
You can always ignore the discussion if you're not interested :)

Seb

> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Seb Bacon <seb.bacon at okfn.org> wrote:
>> I think that to solve this problem we should force first-time
>> installers to include an admin contact and to answer the question "is
>> it OK to check in with CKAN.net?" with a config flag when they install
>> CKAN.  This way, the instance can then report home, and we get the
>> potential for more current usage stats.
>>
>> In fact, I will just write a brief proposal to the dev team for
>> feedback on this subject.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Seb
>>
>>
>> On 9 May 2011 09:39, Friedrich Lindenberg <friedrich.lindenberg at okfn.org> wrote:
>>> Jonathan,
>>>
>>> how is this different from the internal instance sheet we have? This
>>> was made so we don't need to publish contact details and status
>>> updates on the web, but do we really need to do both?
>>>
>>> - Friedrich
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray at okfn.org> wrote:
>>>> Also - in general it would be great to have a list of instances, with
>>>> contacts for each instance (e.g. customer or local community lead) and
>>>> information on who is in charge on our end.
>>>>
>>>> We have:
>>>>
>>>> http://wiki.okfn.org/ckan/instances
>>>>
>>>> Lucy: perhaps you might be able to help flesh this out and migrate to CKAN wiki?
>>>>
>>>> All: what do you think? Worth doing?
>>>>
>>>> J.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:21 AM, James Gardner <james at 3aims.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> Who is in charge of the Colorado instance? I seem to get hundreds of emails
>>>>> a week in error reports from this instance. Could we look into fixing them
>>>>> or changing the reports to just go to the person who needs them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jonathan Gray
>>>>
>>>> Community Coordinator
>>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>>> http://blog.okfn.org
>>>>
>>>> http://twitter.com/jwyg
>>>> http://identi.ca/jwyg
>>>>
>>>
>>
>