Proposal talk:Keep the servers running
|"Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users?". The level of discussion of this proposal is: 5|
Absolutely the most important priority for the WMF. -- Phoebe 05:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- My favorite proposal so far. Sj 05:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- "a++, would propose again"
- Indeed, the precondition to everything else. GerardM 07:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, the Foundation should never forget its core responsibility. the wub "?!" 10:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of the servers are paid by chapters and donors. Indeed keeping the servers running is today our most important priority whether the foundation is the owner of the servers or not. I don´t know if this is right, but I would say that we are a knowledge-organisaton. So it might be possible that one day we shutdown most of our servers, because we change to cloud computing or something else (e.g. distributed databases provided and owned by many organisations and individuals). --Goldzahn 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- The servers are paid by the Wikimedia Foundation. You may be thinking on hardware donations, servers not running the wikis, or bandwidth costs. Platonides 13:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know, the german chapter bought in 2007 30 Proxy-Server for the european datacenter in Amsterdam. --Goldzahn 18:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- The proposal states that the domain names / URL's are the principal method of accessing Wikipedia. IMHO one very popular search engine is actually the principal method of finding content within Wikipedia. This has been investigated by WMF statistician Erik Zachte. Managing several farms of servers owned by the WMF is the principal method for maintaining independence necessary to fulfill the mission. Dedalus 13:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- That is the way we do it now. I have read this here: "Wikipedia will soon allow users to search for open-source videos and add them to existing pages". Does that mean we copy the 200.000 video files from the Internet Archive to commons? Or the video files from metavid? I hope not. The best way would be, that we use the Internet Archive and metavid the same way we use commons now. Today media files are used this way: File:Example.ogg Maybe someday there will be something like File:metavid:Example.ogg or File:Internet_Archiv:Example.ogg Maybe only video files from the Internet Archive or metavid that are edited with Kaltura should be stored at commons. (this is a proposal now) --Goldzahn 18:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This to some extent plays in to the CTO strategy - Brion splitting that operational role off and assuming a more Lead Developer-ish hat going forwards, if all goes as planned. Georgewilliamherbert 05:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this actually something that some folk are suggesting WMF not do? This proposal seems so obvious I must be missing a nuance here. Lar 03:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- This process is not necessarily only to develop new projects, you know. It's for "What should the Foundation be doing in the next five years?" I think we all hopefully agree with the idea the Foundation should keep the servers running for the next five years. Also, you might read the last paragraph again. -- Phoebe 04:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I cannot speak for others. But as far as I'm concerned, I've been browsing proposals (a bit randomly) searching for ones that appeal to me and that would earn my support. So far, this is the only one that actually makes sense to me.
I consider this task, absolutely and definitely, WMF's only top-priority responsibility, one that takes absolute precedence to all others.
If, after ensuring WMF will not run out of money to maintain the availability of Wikimedia content to its current & near future host of readers and editors [which is me, you and every Joe, Lee, Ivan & Muhammad out there (sorry for choosing only these 4 names, no offense meant to all others, and no discriminatory order intended either)];
If, after ensuring the above, WMF has spare resources, it may look at other proposals.
Perhaps keeping all WMF content on a core of WMF-owned servers cannot stand up to future exponential growth. Perhaps, then, some better method of ensuring content integrity & availability must be worked on. I am not familiar with all current technological advances (someone mentioned here "cloud computing": I have no idea what that is), but they are worth investigating, IMHO. This, IMHO, is WMF's most important, and only top-priority, task in the next 5 years. -- Nahum 22:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It is important to include this as a proposal. After all, the Foundation has seen in the last couple of years a flood of donations & it might be tempting to use that money to chase after something new & exciting, while forgetting the dull but critical vital duty of keeping the servers running. Many solid businesses have gone folded because some new endeavor sucked ate up not only the budget, but the profit & the money needed to keep the core business running. (Sometimes I wonder if the Foundation hasn't already started down this road to destruction.) -- Llywrch 18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The entire proposal seems to state facts rather than suggest anything new, form how its hosted to the financial solvency required to be maintained by the foundation ending with posting the cost of hosting for the year. It asks a question which the proposal should have addressed instead "what should be wikimedia's chief priority" instead it states facts for the most part. the only thing resembling a suggestion is something about a secondary goal and keeping a short load time but it doesn't even address it for more than a line. Is it just me or is this proposal missing something like a suggestion or a main idea instead of stating current circumstances. Sure wikimedia foundation maintains the servers that involves hardware, bandwidth and other cost associated with hosting Wikipedia, we all know that the budget has been increasing every year along with other cost associated with maintaining and running something as large Wikipedia, I just don't see any ideas to address those issue in the proposal just focus on the "core goals" which needless to say everyone knows is keeping the servers running, there wouldn't be much of a reason for the Wikimedia foundation if not to keep Wikipedia online, How -is the question here, whether to cut cost,if so then where and how, should the organization or the project itself be subjected to the Laws of parsimony - entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.