[plug] New PLUG news server

[Bernd Felsche]

James Devenish <devenish at guild.uwa.edu.au> writes:

>In message <bdtp22x5jb.ln2 at innovative.iinet.net.au>
>on Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 01:22:19PM +0800, Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> >How do I reconcile this 60-year expiry with Bernd's complaint that
>> >keeping large numbers of messages (e.g. even years' worth) is going
>> >to cause "delays" for people?
>> It's not a complaint. It's a heads-up.

>As a point of English, I would say that your statements about
>delays are complaints.

The heads-up is about potential complaints. You'll know when I complain. :-)

>> I did tell you about the 68-year (24,800 day) expiry. in an earlier
>> posting.

>Yes. I think you even went so far as to say that you were the one who
>set it up like that. And I did not know how to reconcile this long
>expiry with your complaint about "delays". Your arguments are geared
>towards the suggestion that these "delays" will manifest themselves and
>be undesirable, yet at the same time you appeared to tell us that you'd
>set us up for delays in the future. These words and actions seemed
>contradictory to me, hence my confusion.

I gather that the confusion is due to us talking about different
things.

>> You seem more interested in arguing.

>Only to the extent that you do. If you are wanting to suggest that
>I am "arguing" without backing up my arguments with
>"contributions", remember that I offered quite blatantly to
>participate in setting up this news system. 

Yep. You did offer. But that hardly justifies prolonged discussions
that can be largely avoided by your reading of available leafnode2
documentation and inspection of the configuration files. (Not the
source code; the files in /etc/leafnode/.)

>You and the committee chose to buy, configure and host the systems
>yourselves, which is your prerogative, but leaves me with less room

Well I decided, unilaterally to build and initially configure the
system as the lack of same appeared to be a major impediment to
implementing the server. It wasn't worth the time spent on
discussion a system or not as long as somebody with reasonable
connectivity was prepared to provide it with a network and mains
power.

Others who happen to be on the committee have kindly offered to
baby-sit the server and to take care of the final stages of
implementation. I'm not aware of any formal committee decisions that
may have taken place before I handed over the pre-configured server.

>for contribution. I would have been happy to investigate matters
>more concretely myself, but the details and access levels for the
>new server were incomplete when given to me anyway.

Apologies if you feel that I trod on your toes. The implementation
of the server wasn't intended to do that. Getting it up and running
as a proof of concept was the primary goal.

You seemed to have enough on your hands with mailman and potential
integration issue with leafnode.

It really is up to PLUG as a whole to decide what they want on the
server; the committee can make the final decision as to what happens.
PLUG can place whatever value it wants on my experience and the
advice that I give.

I've been around long enough to not take it personally if something
different is done.
-- 
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ /  ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
 X   against HTML mail     | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \  and postings          | to help me spread!