18:00 Time is now 18:00 UTC. 18:00 Should we wait or start? 18:00 who would we wait for? 18:00 How about we take attendance and give docelic 5 minutes to show up? 18:00 ah 18:00 I'll send him an email. 18:00 OK. Everyone who is here, say "here"! 18:00 here 18:00 here 18:00 here 18:00 Nobody Here 18:00 here 18:01 here? 18:01 A helpful elf seems to have scrawled an agenda on http://wiki.hcoop.net/wiki/IrcMeetings 18:01 here 18:01 since we are taking a 5 minute adjournment, now would be a good time to review the agenda to organize or add to it 18:02 if anyone has suggestions 18:02 moo 18:02 I can't think of anything off the top of my head. 18:02 resists the urge to meow 18:03 MEEEOOOWWWW 18:03 jdrake: BE PROFESSIONAL 18:03 'meow' 18:03 Good 18:03 OK, so it would be good if you _can_ be professional during the meeting, just so we can keep order.... 18:04 lol 18:04 Well, we are going pretty good so far, we haven't even started AND we have had our first adjournment 18:04 I _will_ set people +q if they make it hard to have a real discussion. 18:05 Go to #tpu for other stuff. 18:05 < Smerdyakov> If it's a five-minute delay we decided on, then that delay is over. 18:05 < Mike_L> I would just like to say that I'm very happy that Fyodor has been up since last Christmas 18:05 < ntk> Alright. 18:05 < Smerdyakov> ntk, "all right." 18:06 < ntk> I think we should start, if docelic wanders in, so much the better. 18:06 < Mike_L> I was able to brag to my friends that I've had a screen session open since Christmas :) 18:06 < ntk> Mike_L: abulafia has been up 390 days. 18:06 < Smerdyakov> Shall we go down that wiki page's agenda in order? 18:07 < mwolson> sounds good 18:07 < leitgebj> Yes, let's do it. 18:07 < ntk> Ok 18:07 < ntk> let me open it then 18:07 < ntk> IRS update. 18:07 < Smerdyakov> Go for it. 18:07 < ntk> I got the official letter from the IRS a few days ago determining that we are 501(c)(12) tax-exempt 18:08 < Mike_L> ntk: yeah 18:08 < ntk> So that concludes the application process. 18:08 < Mike_L> excellent! 18:08 < ntk> Scan of it is up at hcoop.net/board/ and we no longer need to file income tax returns or are liable for income tax, 18:08 < bkhl> Here. Sorry I'm late. 18:08 < ntk> as long as we abide by the 15% outside income limit (which we will). however, we DO need to file a form 990 or 990-EZ each year, before May I believe 18:09 < ntk> which is simpler than income tax, and just reports our overall budget. 18:09 * Smerdyakov just updated our front page to mention our IRS status. :) 18:09 < ntk> That's about it. 18:09 < ntk> Any questions about that? 18:09 < ntk> or shall we move on 18:09 < Smerdyakov> Move on, say I. 18:10 < ntk> ok 18:10 < ntk> DomtoolTwo 18:10 < ntk> How goes that? 18:10 -!- jch5 [n=whr76@pool-71-124-242-55.bstnma.east.verizon.net] has joined #hcoop 18:10 < Smerdyakov> There's nothing going on. As I said, it's where I want it to be before deploying it on the new systems. 18:10 < Smerdyakov> (http://wiki.hcoop.net/wiki/DomtoolTwo , for those who don't know) 18:11 < Smerdyakov> This would be a good time for any feedback/general discussion regarding it, but there's probably not much to say. 18:11 < mwolson> is there some tool for it that can be used to migrate users from domtool v1? 18:11 < ntk> I haven't had a chance to poke at the code much, but it looks fantastic. Obviously current users will need to port their config files to get their domains running on our new system 18:11 < ntk> hm 18:11 < Smerdyakov> I haven't written any such thing, and it would be hard, because, to be effective, it would need to mine code duplication into proper abstraction. 18:11 < ntk> I think it would probably be easiest to do it by hand., 18:11 < Smerdyakov> And I'll be happy to do a significant share of work porting config. 18:12 < mwolson> ok, if people are willing to help everyone migrate, that works 18:13 < ntk> I don't want to get ahead of the agenda, but I imagine we're going to have fyodor running for a good period of time at least when we are migrating to Peer1, so it won't be a matter of pulling the plug overnight. 18:13 < Mike_L> I don't know if this is related to DomtoolTwo directly, but did we reach any consensus on dns server names? 18:13 < ntk> I don't recall a discussion on dns server names. 18:14 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj is really into using "ns1" instead of "ns". 18:14 < ntk> oh right 18:14 < Mike_L> I know that most domains hosted on hcoop have followed the djbdns recommendation of creating records ns.domain.com=fyodor's ip and ns2.domain.com=abul's ip 18:14 < ntk> I thought the consensus was this was a historical artifact 18:14 < Mike_L> yeah 18:15 < ntk> I think we can deal with that in the migration process, with an aim towards having nice ns1/ns2 names 18:15 < ntk> at some point 18:15 < Mike_L> I'm wondering if the transition to Domtool2 and the new servers would be a good time to have everyone change their domain registrations to use ns1.hcoop.net and ns2.hcoop.net? 18:15 < Smerdyakov> I have no idea what's standard today. 18:16 < ntk> That seems like a rather unimportant chrome issue. the dns server's name is what dns says it is 18:16 < mwolson> ns1 makes more sense than ns 18:16 < ntk> I think we're all agreed on that. 18:16 < Mike_L> I have >5 domain names with godaddy and have ns.domain.com and ns2.domain.com host entries created for each one... it's a lot of entries 18:16 < Smerdyakov> I'm not; rather, I don't have an opinion. 18:16 < Smerdyakov> Mike_L, we never advised anyone to do that. 18:16 < Smerdyakov> Mike_L, it was always to use ns.hcoop.net and ns2.hcoop.net. 18:16 < Mike_L> oh 18:16 < Mike_L> then I'll be quiet now. :) 18:17 < ntk> in any event how hard is it to make ns == ns1? 18:17 < ntk> moving on 18:17 < Smerdyakov> Easy 18:17 < bkhl> I use only ns., since that's the only way that works with .se. 18:17 < ntk> any other DomTool points 18:17 < bkhl> So I'd like ns==ns1 18:17 < Mike_L> it woudl be nice if domtool didn't print error messages from other people's domains 18:17 < Smerdyakov> Mike_L, yup. Already taken care of in Domtool 2. 18:18 < Mike_L> great 18:18 < Smerdyakov> Mike_L, doesn't even look at others' config when you run it. 18:18 < mwolson> very nice 18:18 < ntk> yes, besides the distributed aspect, domtool2 looks much more scalable 18:18 < leitgebj> That is nice. Good job Smerdyakov! 18:18 < ntk> and efficient 18:18 < Mike_L> good. that takes care of the problem of someone running domtool when you're in the middle of editing your domain 18:19 < ntk> I think everyone trusts our resident SML hacker to do the Right Thing with respect to Domtool, and the fact that auto-generated configs from a web interface are a better possibility with it is a big plus 18:19 < Smerdyakov> OK, sounds like we've finished with this subject. 18:19 < ntk> good 18:19 < ntk> Financial situation 18:19 < mwolson> Smerdyakov: mind if i bring up the open design decisions first? 18:19 < Smerdyakov> Oh, sure. 18:19 < Smerdyakov> 18:19 < ntk> go ahead 18:19 < mwolson> i like having the configuration stored in /etc/domains/ 18:20 < ntk> as opposed to user's home directories? 18:20 < ntk> why is this? 18:20 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, I think it might be best to do it by user instead, though also in a common structure. 18:20 < Smerdyakov> Because you will want to share code across domains.. 18:20 < mwolson> hmm ... yeah i guess that would make a bit more sense 18:20 < bkhl> As long as you can still easily find the configs for particular domains. 18:20 < mwolson> especially if the home dirs are exported between our 3 machines 18:20 < bkhl> I find that other people's configs is a good source of examples. 18:21 < ntk> what did you mean by "open design decisions"? 18:21 < Smerdyakov> ntk, section on the wiki page 18:21 < mwolson> ntk: the title by that name 18:21 < ntk> it is easy to do a+r 18:21 < ntk> or to mail the list, or copy the configs if you like 18:21 < ntk> oh ok 18:22 < Smerdyakov> The implementation does automatic dependency analysis, so you can stick a bunch of files in a designated space in your home directory, and the system can figure out the order to run them to do all your config, if we ever need to rebuild it all from scratch. 18:22 < ntk> Smerdyakov/mwolson: where is this wiki section? 18:22 < ntk> i can't find it 18:22 < Smerdyakov> http://wiki.hcoop.net/wiki/DomtoolTwo#head-23bcbffd4dc36014d8747bf07108e100297879f1 18:22 < Mike_L> will vmail files be stored in the home directory, too? 18:22 < mwolson> . . . . 18:22 < Smerdyakov> Mike_L, I'd like to put the mailboxes in home dirs, yes. 18:22 < ntk> right 18:22 < Mike_L> great 18:22 < Smerdyakov> Mike_L, the password database will have to be elsewhere, of course. 18:22 < Mike_L> yes 18:23 < Smerdyakov> Does anyone know of any security access with giving users full access to their vmail Maildirs? 18:23 < Smerdyakov> s/access with/issues with 18:23 < mwolson> it'd be nice if we could have a listing of people who make their domtool2 configuration available, say with symlinks to /etc/domtool-examples/ or somesuch 18:23 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, the wiki is probably enough. 18:23 < ntk> I don't think there should be a problem with that 18:23 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, I fully intend to have a "Domtool recipes" page. 18:23 < ntk> user access to vmail, rather 18:24 < mwolson> Smerdyakov: but adding content to the wiki takes additional steps compared to just making your config public 18:24 < Smerdyakov> And good library code by members will be added to our standard library periodically. 18:24 < mwolson> as long as people are willing to put in the effort it'd work, i guess 18:25 < ntk> I guess the only concern is the global recompilation issue, but that is purely technical 18:25 < ntk> so I would rather not go into discussing the intricacies of that now 18:25 < mwolson> adding user ideas to the standard library would be interesting 18:26 < Smerdyakov> OK, so _now_ are we ready to move on? :) 18:26 < mwolson> let's see ... what role could SSL play in domtool2? 18:26 < Smerdyakov> In case it wasn't clear, all the protocol communication already happens over SSL. 18:26 < mwolson> oh, the section above explains it, nm 18:27 < mwolson> ok, i'm done with that item 18:27 < ntk> that is not important anyway, nobody is going to be sniffing traffic on our switch 18:27 < ntk> but it is a nice feature 18:27 < ntk> for the future 18:27 < ntk> OKAY 18:27 < Smerdyakov> ntk, the main problem is making sure one member can't impersonate another. 18:27 < ntk> Financial situation 18:27 < Smerdyakov> Financial situation looks damned good. 18:27 < ntk> I am happy that members have been good about keeping their balances positive 18:27 < Smerdyakov> I remind the audience of https://members.hcoop.net/portal/pledge 18:28 < ntk> Only sjh is in arrears and I have heard that he will pay up. 18:28 < ntk> Smerdyakov, for the record and for our newer users could you re-explain /pledge, *briefly* 18:28 < Smerdyakov> Current minimal share for projected Peer1 monthly cost: $6.05 18:28 < mwolson> ntk: have all of the hardware donations and (don't remember if we had any) new servers arrived yet? 18:28 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, don't skip ahead. :P 18:28 < Smerdyakov> OK, here's the quick explanation. 18:29 < mwolson> skip ahead? that comes before the financial situation on the wiki page ... 18:29 < ntk> Smerdyakov:actually I skipped ahead, 18:29 < ntk> but we will swap those 18:29 < mwolson> fair enough 18:29 < Smerdyakov> We have 80-some members now. Dividing the projected $750/mo. amount among these people yields a per-member amount that many members aren't willing to pay. 18:29 < Smerdyakov> So we let people sign up to count as multiple members for cost distribution purposes only. 18:30 < Smerdyakov> As a result of members' "pledges" so far, we have 124 "pseudo-members" for cost purposes. 18:30 < Smerdyakov> Our goal is to reach enough that someone can be a member for $5/mo. or less. 18:30 < Smerdyakov> And we've almost cleared the $6 mark. 18:31 < Smerdyakov> 18:31 < ntk> Smerdyakov: I suggest tweaking this whereby everyone starts at 2, and has to opt-in for 1. 18:31 < Smerdyakov> Interesting 18:31 < ntk> I think there are tuned-out members who will pay the somewhat higher amount, but won't bother with the pledge 18:31 < Smerdyakov> Let's see how that would change the situation 18:31 < ntk> Those who are very concerned and cost-sensitive will bump down 18:32 < ntk> well if you change it right away it won't be completely accurate since we don't know how many people will, but at least 5 or 10 will move down I would say 18:32 < jdrake> ntk, I believe that would be a bad idea because it would result in people explicitly halving their amount rather than volunteering to go to an upper tier of cost. It seems to me against the principle of a coop 18:32 < Smerdyakov> Right. Assuming for the sake of quick approximation that everyone not already registered agreed to two, we'd have a $3.66 minimal cost. 18:34 < Smerdyakov> ntk, though I'm wary about assuming that people who have been paying $3/mo. will be OK with paying $10/mo.. 18:34 < ntk> That does not seem possible\ 18:34 < Smerdyakov> ntk, regardless of whether we can "blame" them for not paying attention, they can always quit. 18:34 < bkhl> I'm with jdrake. We've been saying that nobody should feel obliged to pay more than one share. 18:34 < ntk> scrcatch that 18:34 < ntk> those numbers are right 18:34 < ntk> the share is just a number 18:35 < ntk> but let's not change that now 18:35 < Mike_L> we will get new members and the cost will go <$5 18:35 < Smerdyakov> I will send an announcement reminding old members of how close we are and suggesting that new members might want to up their counts. 18:35 < ntk> anyway, as new members have joined and deposited, etc., our cash in the bank is now up to about $2,730 18:36 < ntk> which is also pretty good 18:36 < ntk> although still not much of a reserve once we move to Peer1 18:36 < Smerdyakov> But not really spendable in my conception of the social contract between members and co-op 18:36 < mwolson> do we have some sort of mechanism for accepting one-time gifts that don't get counted toward the monthly balance? 18:36 < ntk> you are still considering the balance as money held in trust 18:37 < Mike_L> yes, it is held in trust 18:37 < ntk> I don't expect a bank run 18:37 < mwolson> b/c i would much prefer that to paying beyond 3 shares 18:37 < ntk> Mike_L, actually it is debt 18:37 < ntk> and it is *not* held in trust 18:37 < Mike_L> there's no reason for the coop to go into debt 18:37 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, no formal mechanism now. 18:37 < ntk> otherwise, we are already breaking trust, we have $2770 in positive balances, and 2728 in cash 18:37 < Mike_L> so by keeping the money, it maintains a zero balance 18:38 < Mike_L> oh, has some charge not been entered and applied to everyone's account? 18:38 < Smerdyakov> Beats me 18:38 < ntk> whether or not we choose to go into "debt", the fact remains that balances are not being held in trust, which is pretty important. we don't want the co-op to be held to the legal obligations of trustee 18:39 < ntk> as well as the inflexibility 18:39 < ntk> I know that some of the expenses I was credited for, such as mailing, were not charged yet 18:39 < ntk> just petty stuff 18:39 < Smerdyakov> We should come up with a concrete idea of what we are doing to make sure we are ready to pay for the expansion. 18:39 < ntk> so perhaps that could go into next months bill or something 18:40 < Smerdyakov> I'm thinking that, at first, I make an e-mail announcement saying how close we are, and we see how many people up their pledges. 18:40 < Smerdyakov> I'm sort of against any membership drive before the move, since moving accounts is a pain. 18:40 < Mike_L> yes 18:41 < ntk> well we will need cash for the initial peer1 fees, and some hardware expenses, plus reserve for our higher monthly costs 18:41 < ntk> so that will have to come from somewhere 18:41 < Smerdyakov> I believe we already have pledges on the wiki that are enough to cover that. 18:41 < ntk> it would be a terrible idea to bill the entire membership at once, as far as i'm concerned 18:41 < ntk> seeing as it is going to benefit hundreds of future members 18:41 < Smerdyakov> (From individuals) 18:41 < leitgebj> Smerdyakov: does the amount that you're saying we "owe" every month include funds for repairs and necessary expansion? I'm still worried that we're not behaving in a sustainable enough way by setting our dues so close to bare operating costs not taking into consideration these other factors. We shouldn't have to get into another situation where we have to rely on donations in order to keep our heads above water, IMHO. 18:41 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, no 18:41 < ntk> Justin & I had a little conversation about this when he came to Queens 18:42 < ntk> i definitely think we need to include some reserves in every charge to members 18:42 < Smerdyakov> Eventually, certainly, but it may not be expedient at first. 18:42 < Mike_L> hasn't this been discussed before? 18:42 < ntk> the normal way cooperatives do this is putting all the excess over expenses in an account, and if there are leftovers at the end of the year or some other period after aperiodic expenses are taken care of, they are credited back to the membership as savings 18:42 < bkhl> So basically every month we'd pull such-and-such amount from each members account to a future expansions and repairs fund. 18:43 < Smerdyakov> I'm personally good for any surprise expenses, and I think we have other members who feel the same way and will split costs. 18:43 < ntk> but 18:43 < ntk> why should we be dependent on such largesse? 18:43 < ntk> if it does, indeed, exist? 18:43 < Smerdyakov> Because we need low prices to increase membership. 18:43 < ntk> hm 18:43 < leitgebj> Perhaps, but some members probably wouldn't want unexpected charges every month. What if the phone company bumped up your bill next month $100 because they needed a new router? 18:43 < Mike_L> yes, and most members don't care about growth 18:43 < ntk> HWelfareCoop.net 18:44 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, no members will be billed for unexpected charges. 18:44 < ntk> it doesn't matter whether members "care" about growth 18:44 < ntk> it benefits them 18:44 < ntk> because ultimately we scale better and their fees go down 18:44 < Mike_L> ntk: some people feel that our current setup is fine 18:44 < ntk> if they aren't paying for maintenance and expansion, then ultimately they are doubly subsidizedd 18:44 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, rather, our core group of interested and financially well-off members will pay those bills on a case-by-case basis, ONLY FOR THE FIRST FEW MONTHS. 18:45 < ntk> Mike_L: but they are in the minority. you can't just pay for expenses you personally agree with 18:45 < Mike_L> ntk: up till now, everyone has paid for maintenance. repairs were split evenly among everyone 18:45 < Smerdyakov> I'd like to stress what may not be obvious to many of you: Several of us (me included) could afford to pay all HCoop expenses and not really feel it that hard. 18:45 < ntk> also, I imagine those same members would start complaining loudly if fyodor died tomorrow and the entire coop was offline for a month. 18:45 < bkhl> ntk: well, I have no problem with donations for particular purposes, as long as they don't bring future costs. 18:45 < Mike_L> ntk: but expansion is a tough question because you could say that the current users are subsidizing the new users 18:45 < mwolson> i like the idea of having a reserve eventually, but it should probably wait until well after the migration when we have enough members to pull it off 18:46 < ntk> alright 18:46 < jch5> And the expenses for legal stuff threw off my budget that I had... 18:46 < ntk> I propose that we bill members at cost as long as Adam can afford to indemnify the entire cooperative. 18:46 < mwolson> heh 18:46 < Smerdyakov> FIne with me. 18:46 < ntk> at which point, we start doing things sensibly 18:46 < ntk> anything else to say about finances right now? 18:46 < bkhl> Heh. 18:46 < jch5> but i'd not mind a small amount per month for reserve...maybe an extra 5-10% 18:47 < ntk> I'm sure there is a lot 18:47 < ntk> 10% would be much better than 0 18:47 < ntk> or 5 for that maatter 18:47 < Mike_L> didn't we already decide to use pledged funds for the new hosting expenses and then credit those funds back to the donators over time, when the new users can contribute to it? 18:47 < Smerdyakov> Mike_L, no. 18:47 < bkhl> I think we might want to set a number of members to reach at which point we'll try to start build that fund and so forth.. 18:47 < Mike_L> I must have misunderstood the mailing list discussion and pledges 18:47 < Smerdyakov> Mike_L, I think we're not planning to pay any of it back, because enough members have volunteered to forgo that. 18:48 < mpotter> Were there plans to vote on preferences for different payment schemes? It seems important enough. 18:48 < bkhl> I think I remember someone saying something about trying to double the membership. 18:48 < Mike_L> Smerdyakov: ok, so some of the pledges were pure donations, rather than loans? 18:48 < Smerdyakov> Mike_L, yes. 18:48 < Mike_L> excellent 18:49 < Smerdyakov> See for yourself: http://wiki.hcoop.net/wiki/FinancingIssues 18:49 < Mike_L> bkhl: I think we're aiming for 500+ users on the new servers 18:49 < jch5> and I, for one, extend a hearty thank you to those who donated extra! 18:49 < ntk> mpotter: I'm not sure a referendum is the best way of doing this. again we've been constantly soliciting views on the list and the wiki, but if we just held a little poll to firmly set payment policy without respect to the changing financial situation, that would probably not be the way to go 18:50 < ntk> since we may have to change it 18:50 < Smerdyakov> So... are we done with financing issues for now? 18:50 < ntk> last call? 18:50 < Mike_L> Smerdyakov: are bonds not repayed in the future? 18:50 < mpotter> Have we resolved anything? 18:50 < ntk> Mike_L: bonds were loans with interest 18:50 < Smerdyakov> mpotter, yes. Earlier I said that I would e-mail everyone and see if we can get pledges to the desired level. 18:51 < ntk> those were going to be repaid, but we probably won't use them 18:51 < Mike_L> ok 18:51 < Smerdyakov> Mike_L, count the number of people who mention flat-out donations. The amounts cover our projected costs. (The ~$3k figure there is out of date thanks to HW donations.) 18:51 < ntk> at least at this time 18:51 < Mike_L> ok I understand 18:51 < mpotter> ok 18:51 < ntk> alright 18:51 < Mike_L> great 18:51 < ntk> going back to Hardware Donations. 18:52 * Mike_L would like to donate after he pays off his tuition and student loans... which will probably be in November 18:52 < ntk> leitgebj stopped by Queens and dropped off our new uberserver deleuze.hcoop.net 18:52 * ntk applauds Justin 18:52 < Smerdyakov> What kind of name is that? Are we letting donators name the machines? :) 18:52 < Mike_L> it's hard to pronounce :P 18:52 < ntk> it has been moved to a secure, plastic-wrapped underbed second-floor undisclosed location in Hillcrest 18:52 < ntk> I unilaterally offered it to him, on the assumption that nobody would object 18:52 < Mike_L> ntk: in the domain of an unstable female? 18:53 < ntk> personally, I think it's a nice name 18:53 < ntk> Mike_L: female has been stabilized 18:53 < ntk> no worries there 18:53 < Smerdyakov> Doesn't matter much, but it's a bitch to type for ssh'ing. 18:53 < Mike_L> excellent 18:53 * mwolson has no problem with donators naming the machines 18:53 < ntk> :-/ 18:53 < Mike_L> I think I would confuse the order of e and u 18:53 < Smerdyakov> But fine fine, moving along.. 18:53 < bkhl> Smerdyakov: we can put a host name shell completion howto on the wiki. 18:53 < ntk> I also emailed Ray and Shaun 18:53 * leitgebj proposes a PTR record of "d.hcoop.net" for ease of ssh'ing. :) 18:54 < ntk> Shaun is still good for the switch 18:54 < ntk> Ray, unfortunately... 18:54 < ntk> seems to be AWOL 18:54 < Smerdyakov> I think the time is probably arrived when we should get all hardware sent to ntk without further delay. 18:54 < Smerdyakov> Yes, I think someone will need to find his phone number and call him. 18:54 < mwolson> it'd be nice to have "operation-specific" aliases for the machines, such as shell, dev, mail, etc. 18:55 < mwolson> though to some extent we already have that 18:55 < ntk> It is odd, because, I got an email from him back in July saying that he was going to box the machine and mail it the next day 18:56 < ntk> and then I haven't heard from him since. I don't think he has logged into hcoop or made a deposit in weeks 18:56 < Smerdyakov> I repeat that a phone call is necessary. You never know what may have come up in someone's life. 18:56 < ntk> right 18:56 < leitgebj> mwolson: I would suggest from the beginning thinking of starting a "mail0, mail1, dev0, dev1, etc. schema" because of the directions that futurre expansion may take us. 18:56 < ntk> he may have had something happen to him 18:56 < Mike_L> he may be in jail 18:56 < ntk> or he could be an FBI agent provocateur 18:56 < mwolson> leitgebj: i don't like a numeric post-fix though 18:56 < Smerdyakov> ntk, will you take charge of that? 18:56 < Mike_L> or at the bottom of a lake 18:56 < ntk> Okay 18:56 < bkhl> I see he hasn't been logged in for three weeks or so. 18:57 < ntk> I will try, I don't think we have his phone number, but I'll see if I can contact him somehow 18:57 < ntk> In any event, I think deleuze is good to be popped right in, I don't know if we want to add memory or anything but that is easy to do, 18:57 < Smerdyakov> Three weeks? That means he logged in since he told ntk he'd ship... 18:57 < ntk> we will need to get cables and rails and that sort of thing 18:57 < leitgebj> mwolson: the numeric postfix is great when you have to execute commands on all machines in a cluster, with a for loop in bash or the like. Otherwise maintenance of clusters can be more of a pain for quick changes. 18:58 < Smerdyakov> Hm. Did we decide _not_ to upgrade the donations further in our first set-up? 18:58 < ntk> i am trying to find the email 18:58 < mwolson> leitgebj: irrelevant for 3 machines 18:58 < mwolson> this ain't a cluster! :^) 18:58 < leitgebj> mwolson: how long do you really think we'll be on 3 machines? 18:58 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, BTW, Domtool 2 handles some of that synchronous execution. No bloody bash scripts. ;) 18:58 < mwolson> leitgebj: 2 1/2 years 18:59 < Mike_L> :) 18:59 < jch5> It would seem to be a good idea to have valid current contact phone nbrs for ALLl members to be avail for admin use.. 18:59 < bkhl> Where does Ray live? 18:59 < Mike_L> jch5: the portal has options for that 18:59 < Smerdyakov> bkhl, I already sent ntk a private message with the info. 18:59 < ntk> He sent that email on July 16. 18:59 < ntk> bkhl: yes, let's leave that off of the meeting log 18:59 < Smerdyakov> bkhl, he hasn't chosen to post it in our member directory, so I'll respect his privacy in this logged forum. 19:00 < bkhl> Anyway, it seems like an easy thing to find him. Not that many Ray Racine's. 19:00 < mwolson> ntk: so this Shaun person is providing our 3rd machine? 19:00 < leitgebj> Smerdyakov: I think that we decided that Ray's machine, if we receive it, needs an upgrade to a RAID configuration. Otherwise, the Dell is probably fine as-is, and a memory upgrade could probably wait a while. 19:00 < ntk> and in any event, it was an offer for a gift. he is not obliged to follow through if his circumstances have changed. 19:00 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, OK 19:01 < jch5> I meant having nbrs avail off-line to avoid any privacy issues.. 19:01 < Smerdyakov> ntk, so shall we wait to think about rails until the main hardware players are in your hands? 19:01 < ntk> hm, this topic blends into our big one, which is migration 19:01 < Smerdyakov> jch5, that has been available for years now. 19:01 < ntk> Smerdyakov: that seems to be a good idea 19:01 < ntk> I will talk to the Peer1 people about that 19:01 < Smerdyakov> jch5, you set a number yourself! 19:01 < Smerdyakov> jch5, Ray just hasn't. 19:01 < ntk> shall we talk about NewMembers briefly before we go back to Peer1 and migration? 19:01 < Smerdyakov> ntk, if you'd like. 19:02 < ntk> not much to say about that, other than we have had an increasing number of new members, which is pleasing, 19:02 * Mike_L is pleased 19:02 < ntk> including one application today from a Methodist minister in a rural small town with interesting ideas 19:02 < Smerdyakov> And also displeasing, since they all need to be mirgated. ;) 19:02 < Smerdyakov> migrated 19:02 < ntk> who here is a relatively new member? 19:02 < ntk> offby1? 19:02 < bkhl> I am, I guess. 19:02 < ntk> bkhl is already an old-timer 19:02 < Smerdyakov> offby1 joined in the last few eeks. 19:02 < Smerdyakov> weeks 19:03 < Smerdyakov> Also, yure. 19:03 < ntk> right 19:03 < Smerdyakov> That's it among people present, I think. 19:03 < ntk> well, welcome all you folks 19:03 < ntk> spread the word 19:03 < ntk> hm 19:03 < mwolson> certainly a good problem to have 19:03 < ntk> alright 19:03 < ntk> now to the meat of the meeting 19:03 < ntk> which involves the hardware questions too 19:03 < ntk> which is migration 19:03 < Mike_L> MEEEAAAT! 19:04 < ntk> ok 19:04 < ntk> tofu 19:04 < ntk> ignore that word 19:04 < Mike_L> :) 19:04 < Smerdyakov> My conception is that the checkpoint is that ntk has all three hardware donations in hand. 19:04 < ntk> I think we need to establish a timeline 19:04 < ntk> Shaun is willing to ship the switch whenever I give him the word 19:04 < ntk> so I can email him today and ask him to ship it 19:04 < Smerdyakov> ntk, any reason not to do so today? 19:04 < ntk> Ray's machine is in question 19:04 < ntk> no. 19:04 < ntk> I have space for it 19:05 < Smerdyakov> OK 19:05 < ntk> what about Abu? 19:05 < ntk> is it going into the cabinet? 19:05 < Smerdyakov> I think we should wait until the others are working for ~a month. 19:05 < ntk> ok 19:05 < mwolson> agreed 19:05 < ntk> fair enough 19:06 < ntk> so from a software standpoint, with domtool ready, there is nothing holding us up? 19:06 < Smerdyakov> There are two classes of things there. 19:06 < Mike_L> I have a funny feeling that abu will need a new cpu fan 19:06 < Smerdyakov> First, the non-trivial new software that we need to develop. I've volunteered to fill a kind of "CTO" role and be in charge of that. 19:06 < ntk> other than that, we have 3 blocks: 1. financial (which may be already done), 2. negotiating with peer1 and getting those arrangements finished (can be done very quickly), and 3. hardware, getting it all together, onsite, and installed 19:07 < ntk> okay 19:07 < Smerdyakov> I'm sure there are many other small standard sysadmin scripts/programs that need writing, and I leave docelic, leitgebj, and mwolson in charge of that. 19:07 < bkhl> Smerdyakov: what are we talking about, apart from DomTool 2? 19:07 < leitgebj> Sure, any time. 19:07 < ntk> is all that going to be done after HCoop Peer1 is online? 19:07 < Smerdyakov> The other main new piece that I see as falling into "my" category is a watchdog program that enforced resource limits in a better way than ulimits can. 19:08 * ntk steams 19:08 < ntk> where is davor? 19:08 < ntk> he loses an ntk brownie point. 19:08 < Smerdyakov> docelic has mentioned some vague idea about a monitoring program he has in mind to create, so that may overlap with my "watchdog" proposal. 19:08 < Smerdyakov> ntk, hey, you've missed a meeting before! 19:08 < ntk> correction: 19:08 < ntk> I've missed two. 19:08 < mwolson> i wouldn't mind writing scripts 19:09 < Smerdyakov> mwolson, I view it as just part of the sysadmin duties you've already signed up for. ;) 19:09 < mwolson> :^) 19:10 < Mike_L> the limits on php are rather annoying 19:10 < Smerdyakov> Yup, those will go away, unless the system really is closed to reaching some resource limit. 19:10 < Smerdyakov> s/closed/close 19:10 < ntk> so what kind of timeline are we looking at here 19:10 < ntk> in terms of us calling Peer1 and leasing the cabinet 19:10 < ntk> are we ready, other than hardware? 19:11 < ntk> I'd like to have that done in the next 90 days at most 19:11 < Smerdyakov> I feel ready! We need to verify availability of everyone who will go to work on the machines remotely, though. 19:11 < mwolson> yeah, sooner is better 19:11 < mpotter> That seems reasonable. 19:12 < mwolson> do we have enough money that we could purchase a new machine should a donor not come through? 19:12 < leitgebj> Wait, isn't Ray's machine, or a new one to replace it, something that we need to resolve before talking about leasing the space? I thought that there was strong opposition before to deploying our architecture one machine short? 19:12 < Smerdyakov> So, people who are here, could you dedicate in a pinch any weekend int he near future to setting up the new servers? 19:12 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, I don't remember that. 19:12 < Smerdyakov> (Oh, and my question is only addressed to those who have volunteered for particular positions.) 19:13 < ntk> my position is getting the hardware on-site, installed, and online. 19:13 < ntk> and network-configured 19:13 < ntk> i will commit to any weekend 19:13 < ntk> fridays included 19:13 < leitgebj> Smerdyakov: fine, I thought that you were the strongest advocate for the separation of an "admin" machine, which doesn't occur without adding one more server. I was fine without it, so if you're changing your position now, that is fine with me. ;) 19:14 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, huh? Your donation is the admin machine and Ray's is all the rest, at first. 19:14 < ntk> what 19:14 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, it's definitely much better to have a separate server for users to log into, but we can wait a month. 19:14 < ntk> ok 19:14 < Mike_L> yeah, abul will be the shell server, right? 19:15 < Smerdyakov> Mike_L, yes 19:15 < leitgebj> OK, I see what you're saying. But we don't have a timeline on getting Ray's machine, and we don't have the money set aside to buy a brand new server. Don't these issues have to be resolved before we commit ourselves to start working on the architecture on a certain date? 19:16 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, yes. I already said that ntk's possession of the three donations is the next milestone. 19:16 < leitgebj> Smerdyakov: ok 19:16 < ntk> now, 19:16 < Smerdyakov> There's some architectural planning that can (maybe should) be done before we sign up with Peer 1, but I hope the three admin volunteers can take charge of that. 19:16 < ntk> let us suppose that server #2 does not materialize 19:17 < ntk> do I buy or build one? 19:17 < Smerdyakov> ntk, at the least, we can poll the membership again to see if someone new has a donation. 19:17 < ntk> or rather 19:17 < ntk> someone else does, and has it shipped here 19:17 < ntk> ok 19:18 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, mwolson, any thoughts on plans before the machines are set up? 19:19 < mwolson> nothing specific 19:19 < leitgebj> Well, if we can pick up a used DRAC for the Dell it may help. That would be a cheaper replacement of the Cyclades that docelic suggested. There are similar devices for Sun machines I think. 19:19 < Smerdyakov> I thought we'd decided not to use remote access cards for the time being. 19:19 < Smerdyakov> And I meant to ask about planning that assumes the hardware choices are already made. :) 19:20 < ntk> DRAC is not a bad idea except it seems questionable whether we will have any other dells online 19:20 < leitgebj> Smerdyakov: what do you mean before the machines are set up? Before we rack them? 19:20 < Smerdyakov> ...and the cost... 19:20 < ntk> in any event that is something we can hold off on 19:20 < ntk> cost too, although it's hella cheaper than a Cyclades 19:20 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, before you have any access to them whatsoever. Things like planning how to make AFS work effectively, etc.. 19:22 < leitgebj> Smerdyakov: as far as I'm concerned, I don't see any reason that we need to set up AFS, etc. before they're in the rack. I guess if we're not getting a DRAC or equivalent, we need to talk about partitioning for the base OS on each machine, and the specific RAID configuration. The decisions I made on partitioning and filesystem tunings were arbitrary on the Dell. 19:22 < jch5> it seems that things are in good hands here, and I have to take care of some business, so I'll catch the rest of this when it's posted as a log..thanks and bye! 19:22 -!- jch5 [n=whr76@pool-71-124-242-55.bstnma.east.verizon.net] has left #hcoop [] 19:22 < ntk> hm 19:23 < ntk> I thought justin's settings sounded reasonable but I could do a remote hands session on #hcoop with the server if need be 19:23 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, OK then. 19:23 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, the issue is just that we start paying for space once the machines are set up, and some planning can be done before then to save money. 19:23 < leitgebj> I guess the most critical thing that we should look at would be filesystem settings on the RAID 10 set on the Dell, but that should be able to be taken care of in the rack. 19:24 < leitgebj> Smerdyakov: right, let's get an email discussion going on about this. I don't think it all needs to be settled here. 19:24 < leitgebj> hcoop-sysadmin? 19:24 < Smerdyakov> leitgebj, I'm asking you and/or the other two volunteers to take charge of that. Do it however you want. 19:25 < Mike_L> better do a good job! ;) 19:25 < ntk> 2 drives are mirrored, and 4 are raid-10, right? 19:25 < ntk> heh 19:25 < leitgebj> ntk correct 19:25 < ntk> okay 19:25 < Mike_L> leitgebj: have you done this sort of thing before? 19:25 < leitgebj> Mike_L: what sort of thing? 19:26 < ntk> who are "the other 2 volunteers"? 19:26 < Smerdyakov> docelic and mwolson 19:26 < ntk> right 19:26 < ntk> ok 19:26 < Mike_L> leitgebj: installing a unix server for 50+ users 19:26 < ntk> hm 19:26 < ntk> I think that was his job 19:26 < ntk> >>50users 19:26 < Mike_L> oh good 19:27 < leitgebj> I was an operations developer (admin/programmer) on a site with 400+ unix/linux servers and 1/2 billion web hits per day 19:27 < Mike_L> excellent 19:27 < leitgebj> But that doesn't mean that I know enough to do it myself! :P 19:27 < Mike_L> then you won't make foolish mistakes like I did when I first installed Abulafia :P 19:28 * mwolson just learned about lvm2 this week 19:28 < ntk> okay 19:28 < bkhl> OK. Now we're just chatting. 19:28 < Smerdyakov> I think we have finished the topics on the agenda, and it's time to start summarizing what we've decided to do to address them. 19:28 < ntk> so let's recap what we are going to do now. 19:28 < Mike_L> yeah 19:28 < ntk> Me: Email shaun, try to call Ray. 19:28 < Smerdyakov> And hopefully ntk will included these items in his meeting summary on the web 19:29 < ntk> ... put log/summary on board website 19:29 < Smerdyakov> Me: E-mail The People about increasing their pledges 19:29 < Smerdyakov> And also update the wiki to include the custom software pieces that I think we need 19:30 < Smerdyakov> 19:30 < ntk> good. 19:30 < ntk> shall we have a *quick* meeting this time two weeks? 19:30 < ntk> or should we hold off on scheduling until we find out stuff 19:30 < Smerdyakov> I would hold off. 19:30 < bkhl> How about you announce a new meeting after the hardware situation is cleared up? 19:30 < mwolson> we should know in two weeks whether or not we will need to buy a new server 19:31 < mwolson> so i'd say to have the meeting in two weeks 19:31 < Smerdyakov> I'd like to add that I'm hoping/expecting docelic, leitgebj, and mwolson to be figuring out anything that ought to be figured out about system configuration before we go live. 19:32 < ntk> that was what I was hoping too 19:32 < ntk> it always take a while to get these meetings going 19:32 < leitgebj> OK, I'll send out an email to the sysadmin list after this outlining major points to clarify for final setup. 19:33 < ntk> okay can we adjourn then? 19:33 < Smerdyakov> I do believe we can! 19:33 < leitgebj> As a final note, I just wanted to say that I'm still uneasy about relying on the benevolence of any members to bail us out when we need upgrades or repairs, for any amount of time. This makes us more susceptible to having changes based on the ideologies of the wealthiest members, rather than a more cooperative atmosphere where all are involved in decision-making. For this reason, even if Smerdyakov wants to indemnify the co-op 19:33 < leitgebj> , I feel that we should adjust pricing anyway to maintain room for maintenance and upgrades. 19:33 < leitgebj> That is all. 19:33 < ntk> I agree 19:33 < Smerdyakov> That would slow our growth a lot. 19:33 < bkhl> Me too. 19:33 < ntk> I propose we revisit that at our next meeting 19:33 < ntk> so we can have docelic and myself overrule adam on that 19:33 < Smerdyakov> I'm only talking about that kind of thing for on the order of 3 months. 19:33 < mpotter> ntk: good idea 19:34 < ntk> Meeting adjourned!