[Osmf-talk] The role of face-to-face meetings in the future of the OSMF board

Joseph Reeves iknowjoseph at gmail.com
Mon Oct 27 16:21:32 UTC 2014

>Likely the better way of understanding the tweet would have been: "do
>you think spending $150k to avoid a very short outage is worth it?"

As someone involved in this original twittering, I didn't read the message
like that. Sure $150k is a lot of money to keep the DB available during a
planned reboot, but it would appear to be a very small amount of money to
spend in order to keep the OSM database online if something catastrophic
was to happen to the server it currently lives on. This weekend's
interruption was brief; there has been larger interruptions in the past and
there's always the possibility that Something Bad is going to unexpectedly
happen. I'm sure that database replication could also lead to some powerful
use cases that aren't available to us yet: Performance improvements in
places far from London, perhaps.

I do some BC/DR work for my day job; $150k is a lot smaller than some of
the quotes I've received before.

What I'm trying to get at is a big +1 for Kate's previous email.

I want the OSMF to be doing big, exciting and inspiring things. OSMF should
be ran by the best people from the OSM community, and they should be hiring
great members of staff to fill the gaps that volunteers can't. OSMF should
be getting huge amounts of funding and doing great stuff with it. A map
that anyone can edit was a pretty mind blowing idea, please continue with
the innovation; I have enjoyed reading Steve's call for "try new things"
(full disclosure: I have one of his GPS prints hanging on my wall) even if
I don't agree with many of his finer points.

Cheers, Joseph

On 27 October 2014 15:55, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

> Am 27.10.2014 15:42, schrieb Kate Chapman:
> > ..................................... This doesn't mean we just
> > fundraise and spend for the sake of it, but we don't need to be afraid
> > of taking on large projects. For example we had downtime this weekend,
> > according to a tweet from the OSM Tech team to add redundancy so that
> > wouldn't happen would cost $150k. Why don't we aspire to do that?
> To put this in the correct perspective: the OSMF raised a significant
> amount of money for improving redundancy over the last couple of years
> and in general AFAIK never has not agreed to financing a plan proposed
> by the OWG. With other words if the OWG would have asked for another
> $150k they would have got it.
> Likely the better way of understanding the tweet would have been: "do
> you think spending $150k to avoid a very short outage is worth it?"
> It is not news that our admins are -very- cost aware bordering on
> stingy, but in the end they and the OWG have to make the plans they can
> stand behind and make the trade-offs they feel are responsible.
> Simon
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20141027/44238fcd/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list