Why is it prohibited here? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Local_community_domains#Buying_a_separate_domain
Also, this policy should probably be moved to the policy repo on docs.fp.o
Metadata Update from @bex: - Issue tagged with: policies
I continue to wonder why we can't support official fedora communities. I think we should ask infra to scope providing service to a repo based configuration similar to our fedora-website repo and the docs and budget sites to solve this.
Suggesting the content be hosted and managed somewhere on Fedora infra? I think one of the main reasons that is prohibited is that nobody feels comfortable vetting that content. Particularly if the content is written in local language. If someone starts linking to third party repos or whatever, it can be a liability concern.
Also, there's the general "where does our offer of hosting stuff stop" problem. Websites might be fine. But what if someone wants us to host a service? A VM? etc.
Metadata Update from @mattdm: - Issue priority set to: Next Meeting
I think you would have to ask @jperrin about what infrastructure is willing to support. I believe that teh reason of the ban is that Ifedora infrastructure was not willing to support, update and maintain a bunch of different platforms.
I am not sure how the problem "really" exists. Fedora hosts a number of places to host content, e.g. the wiki, docs.fp.o, (arguably) pagure. Can't you solve this problem with a domain that points to any of those content areas? For example, http://fed-mod.org.
Personally I'd rather have sub-domains instead of domain sprawl like fed-mod and others that may exist, especially if we're attempting to establish something formally. I could easily see sites, and services running via an infra OpenShift, but this would come with added responsibility for both the devs and Infra team.
As to what Infra is willing to support, we're in discussions about this, and should have an answer around something like this soon.
Ping @jperrin Any update? Any idea what soon might be? :)
Metadata Update from @mattdm: - Issue priority set to: Waiting on External (was: Next Meeting)
We have a plan for executing on this, but it's not currently prioritized, because of resourcing requirements. This will more forward, but for now it's in the 'nice-to-have'.
What are the general service level expectations that Infrastructure is being asked to provide?
Any of those would fit in the the general request and it would be good to make the scope easier to say yes or no to.
My suggestion is to spec it as:
What are the general service level expectations that Infrastructure is being asked to provide? Running static websites?
Running static websites?
Yes, from both provided html and an infra specified list of static generators (Jekyll and Antora are my suggestions)
Running dynamic websites from a short list of known programs (aka wordpress/wiki?)
Yes, from an infra specified shortlist (wordpress is my only suggestion - I don't think we need a wiki here)
Running whatever is asked for by the community?
No. These requests would go through the normal, "Can infra do X" process
Setting up and running services for the community
Yes, all services from the short list are provided "as-a-service" and will be run and maintained by infra. Infra has no need to fix content errors, etc.
Any of the above plus designing the site?
Not an infra task. Help should be able to be asked from the Design team or provided by the community.
Does this help?
These communities will now be able to access Mindshare funds to do this based on the Council decisions during the Fedora Hackfest.
Metadata Update from @bex: - Issue close_status updated to: resolved - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Log in to comment on this ticket.