[Imc-tech] Re: IMC-US website on groogroo server:

[Zachary C. Miller]

> Finally, what level of consensus is considered sufficient for
> groogroo/UCIMC to take on such a load?  A tech meeting? Steering?

As I understand it, this would be simply another client to groogroo
and it'd be up to me as the groogroo administrator to accept or reject
the request for hosting as I would any other client who requests
service.

If either tech (which doesn't exist right now) or Steering wanted to
tell me I shouldn't do it then I'll accept that veto, but I don't
think consensus is needed to tell me that I _can_ do it since I've
already been empowered to make that decision (and I wouldn't accept
consensus telling me I _have_ to do it if I decided that it was
untenable, since I'm the one doing the work).

I'm happy to have this understanding clarified or changed by some
other policy of steering but that is how I understand things to stand
now.

I'm not going to allow imc-us to interfere with our local clients. I
want my server to serve our community first and foremost. Right now I
am going to reserve judgement about whether or not we can commit to
hosting US-IMC until I find out how well the improvements that I am
attempting to make turn out, until I get bandwidth shaping in place,
and until I get much better bandwidth measurement/monitoring tools in
place. That may all happen in the next 3 months. When US-IMC is ready
to go on line and/or when my improvements have been made I'll
revaluate.

I am still hessitant. I am also not so hessitant as to block the
US-IMC development process from even considering groogroo.

This all brings to light the need to rekindle our local tech
efforts. There has been talk in Steering of rekindling tech as an
umbrella group with techies from all the other working groups working
together. I plan on trying to bootstrap such a rekindling of tech when
I return from vacation.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sascha Meinrath [mailto:sascha at ucimc.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 7:00 PM
> To: Zachary C. Miller
> Cc: tech at ucimc.org
> Subject: [Imc-tech] Re: IMC-US website on groogroo server:
> 
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Zachary C. Miller wrote:
> 
> > Sascha, if you really honestly think that this is the only option for
> > hosting US-IMC and the US-IMC tech team agrees and there is some
> > monetary input from the service then I'm ok with it.
> 
> I think there are other options, but not any that are as good (I know,
> it's sad, but Indymedia's infrastructure makes our national power grid
> look state-of-the-art).  I'll check with the IMC-US-Tech team and see
> what
> they think.  But I think that by the time we're good to go live, the
> UCIMC's server will be in _much_ more stable straights than it is now.
> 
> > I'm still very concerned about the bandwidth of a national scope site
> > vs local sites. A small percentage of 200,000,000 people is still much
> > more than an order of magnitude larger percentage of 100,000
> > people. But I guess we'll just see.
> 
> Yes, but a small percentage of 200,000,000 people is also _a lot_ more
> folks who'd be willing to pitch in with donations to keep the website
> up.
> The global Indymedia site gets roughly 50,000 hits a day -- it might be
> good to get some usage stats from their tech team so we know what the
> maximum stress would be for our system.
> 
> > I'm also concerned about having all the eggs in one fragile basket. My
> > house isn't neccessarily the best place to house the national
> > revolution against corporate dominance.
> 
> Yeah -- if we house IMC-US, I think we'll want to mirror things too.
> It's
> something that we've talked about for quite some time, but maybe this is
> the imputus for doing it -- I'm sure that we will find another IMC that
> would be willing to be our backup.
> 
> > But if this really is an issue of us or nothing then of course I'm
> > happy to help the cause. I just want to make sure this will really
> > help the cause and I'm concerned that it won't.
> >
> > I guess I know what I'll be working on for the next three months.
> Whee.
> 
> Think of it as a first step to something grand.  I really think that we
> can use this as a building block for building a much better community
> resource.  But even at worst, we'd just have to move things over once
> development is done.
> 
> --Sascha
> 
> 
> > Sascha Meinrath wrote:
> > > Hi Zach,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Zachary C. Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > > I do not want anyone else to rely on us until our infrastructure
> is
> > > > seriously improved. I'm working on that when I get back...but who
> > > > knows, maybe McLeod and Volo will both suck. I'm starting to think
> > > > seriously about doing a Colo somewhere.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, we definitely do not have the available resources to host
> > > > US-IMC right now. Our bandwidth is very often maxed out and a
> national
> > > > IMC site is certain to have lots of high bandwidth stuff. We're
> not
> > > > the right people to be serving this. US-IMC needs to be on a T-1
> or a
> > > > colo.
> > >
> > > Right now we've got the best infrastructure for the site that we
> have
> > > available -- not perfect, but then again, until this last mess with
> Sol
> > > Tec, we've been more stable than some ISPs (think Prairienet).  The
> site
> > > might max out our current bandwidth eventually, but it would also
> provide
> > > damn good leverage to raise the funding necessary to improve our
> network
> > > -- think of it as a bootstrapping methodology.  At least for the
> > > foreseeable future there wouldn't be much stress put on our
> infrastructure
> > > at all (I doubt we'll even launch before the end of this year or
> early
> > > next year) -- we still have to build the syndication system after
> all.
> > > Mainly though, we're the best option we have right now -- if there
> was a
> > > big old T-1 or colo, I'd be all for it, but there isn't.  Also, in
> terms
> > > of helping put us on the map (and keeping us on it), this is an
> absolutely
> > > brilliant opportunity.
> > >
> > > > Perhaps if all the improvements that I'm working on all work well
> then
> > > > maybe it'd be worth it but right now I feel VERY overwhelmed with
> the
> > > > number of people that rely on Groogroo that are completely let
> down by
> > > > all the downtime. I want to take care of them, make sure they are
> well
> > > > served, before piling on some HUGE new project. Sure it wouldn't
> be
> > > > extra work maintaining the site, but dealing with the increased
> demand
> > > > on resources and the increased number of people bitching at me
> when
> > > > things out of my control take the site down would be hugely
> > > > stressfull.
> > > >
> > > > Now if US-IMC can put a bunch of money in the pot (say a few
> thousand
> > > > up front and $200-$500/month) then things may be different.
> > >
> > > I think this is something that we can build up to -- there's
> certainly
> > > much more money in a national website than in our local stuff -- and
> the
> > > potential donor audience is _much_ larger.  But either way, the site
> won't
> > > need any bandwidth to speak of for another few months.  And we have
> to
> > > start somewhere to achieve the dream of a full-on rocking
> infrastructure.
> > > It might be a bit scary right now, but honestly, it's probably our
> best
> > > opportunity yet to build out our network infrastructure.
> > >
> > > I really think we should do this -- the worst thing that would
> happen is
> > > that 6 months from now we realize that we have to move the project
> to a
> > > better location with more bandwidth, but for now, we have nothing to
> loose
> > > and the potential for _lots_ of gain.  I can understand the stressed
> out
> > > feeling, but I will take the heat from the IMC-US group if something
> goes
> > > wrong.  In the meantime, I'd really like to see us support this
> project.
> > >
> > > Let me know if this timeline helps alleviate your fears about the
> site &
> > > getting some DSL backup before things go big.
> > >
> > > --Sascha
> > >
> > > > Sascha Meinrath wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > There's interest in putting the IMC-US website on the groogroo
> server, but
> > > > > before saying "yes" I wanted to check with you all.  Personally,
> I
> > > > > absolutely think we should do this -- in terms of bootstrapping
> our
> > > > > infrastructure, hosting a website such as this will prove a
> _huge_ boon
> > > > > for grantwriting for equipment, donors, etc.  The site won't go
> live for a
> > > > > couple months yet, which should leave us time to get the
> additional DSL
> > > > > lines up and running.
> > > > >
> > > > > The IMC-US group has its own tech team (so the additional work
> on our end
> > > > > would be minimal).
> > > > >
> > > > > So what do folks think?
> > > > >
> > > > > --Sascha
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-tech mailing list
> Imc-tech at urbana.indymedia.org
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc-tech
> 

-- 
Zachary C. Miller - @= - http://wolfgang.groogroo.com/
IMSA 1995 - UIUC 2000 - Just Another Leftist Muppet - Ya Basta!
 Social Justice, Community, Nonviolence, Decentralization, Feminism,
 Sustainability, Responsibility, Diversity, Democracy, Ecology