Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 09:23:49 +1000 (EST) From: jason andrade <jason@rtfmconsult.com> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: freebsd-hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mirror Site Requirements... Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.50.0307160919440.619-100000@luna.rtfmconsult.com> In-Reply-To: <20030715215327.GB23859@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> References: <20030712173332.GB14686@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <3F14147F.2010706@jonny.eng.br> <20030715203333.GA25714@roma.coe.ufrj.br> <20030715215327.GB23859@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Ken Smith wrote: > I'm also very uncomfortable with "retroactively" establishing new rules. > I don't mind applying the new rules "strictly" to new Mirror Site offers > and "less-strictly" to existing Mirror Sites if that seems fair. You have > all been contributing to the FreeBSD Project and I don't want it to ever > seem like anyone is being ungrateful for that. i can see that it might be uncomfortable and much as i hate the thought of not being compliant and having to bring our mirror up to compliance to meet retrospective requirements - i think it is a worthwhile thing for the freebsd group/mirror project as a whole. it is *much* better for mirrors to maintain a base level of consistency as our research into mirror use here has shown that users are more likely to use mirrors when they have stability in the process. any loss of stability almost certainly leads to the majority defaulting back to their perceived master site: ftp.freebsd.org and it takes a while for them to switch back again (e.g build trust in the process again). so to address the point - if rules come about they are being developed in consultation with the community and should be consistently applied to all mirrors. regards, -jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.50.0307160919440.619-100000>