- From: Peter Linss via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 17:13:25 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> All of those requirements are separate from the requirement for users to be able to reliably read drafts.csswg.org specs. But all of those requirements do exist, and they all need maintenance too. > I raised this issue without knowing that — because until it was stated in the comment above, I hadn’t heard that. Because you didn't ask. > But I don’t believe the fact that there’s a sponsor on the horizon relieves us from responsibility for looking in detail at the actual end-user needs — and based on those needs, trying to make an objective assessment of what could be the best way to address those needs. Fixing the current infrastructure will result in a stable draft server far faster than this conversation is even likely to be concluded. > But on top of all that, in order for anybody else to try to make fixes to the code or deployment, they’d first need to know what’s broken: What specific part of the code causes the system to get wedged 3 or 4 days out of each week? Or if it’s not part of the code, what part of the deployment system or the server ecosystem needs to be changed? Right, so where's the conversation about that? Rather than jumping to 'let's scrap the whole thing and start over'? Why not start by asking **that**? > As far as estimating how much work is required to fix the existing drafts.csswg.org backend, I’ve got to admit I have absolutely no idea Again, you didn't **ask**. FWIW, the one-person-month estimate isn't just to fix the draft server, it's to refresh _all_ of the above infrastructure, which hasn't been properly maintained in _years_. The actual fix to make the server more reliable is about a week of effort. It's a matter of reducing the load on the DB server. And all this has been discussed before. --- The thing about this that's really infuriating me here, is that the fundamental problem is not, and has never been, that the current infrastructure is not suited to task, or somehow unmaintainable, and needs to be replaced. The problem is that it needs to be **maintained**. While I was happy to do that while my W3C work was sponsored, I'm unable to dedicate that much of my time without support. Rather than research the root problems, the knee-jerk response is to throw out what we have and build something new and shiny. __Without any plan or even discussion of how that new thing will be maintained going forward__. We have a much larger problem than the draft server getting wedged from time to time. We have no sustainable path for maintaining our existing infrastructure, let alone resources for building something new. If people would take half the time that they spend complaining about the existing infrastructure and use it toward constructively working on building a sustainable method for maintaining what we already have, we would never have gotten to the point of having an unreliable server if the first place. (And yes, I know discussions on that front were started years ago by Tobie at TPAC, but since then, crickets. Especially when it came time for people to put up money and other resources.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by plinss Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7500#issuecomment-1185741345 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 15 July 2022 17:13:27 UTC