[OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving

Thu Dec 5 03:04:37 PST 2013

Jeff

You have raised the topic of our use of basecamp several times. I believe the LOC has the right and the need to choose the internal comms tool that works best for it. We chose basecamp and it worked well for us, much much better than dysfunctional mailing lists or a wiki. Those who follow on can make their own choices.

Re the archiving of logo file, discussions etc. We have committed to doing this and will deliver in a way that may be useful to others although I doubt that Portland or anyone following will ever look at this stuff, I know we never looked in the SVN at previous years' archives
______
Steven

> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving
> Date: 4 December 2013 15:57:01 GMT
> To: discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> 
> As for the  Basecamp archive, it's likely useless as-is, but what should
> be done is to extract out the individual parts (docs, raw logos) then
> upload them individually to SVN, and then move the discussions into
> OSGeo wiki pages.  Of course this is much easier to do from the
> beginning of the event planning.  We can add this to the 2013 lessons
> learned page for sure.
> 
> Thanks for taking this time to share your files.  They are super
> important for future FOSS4G local committees.
> 
> -jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013-12-04 10:39 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
>> The material for FOSS4G 2013 for possible archiving amounts to:
>> 
>> 1. Static web site, including mapgallery HTML but not including
>> mapgallery images: 74Mb
>> 
>> 2. MapGallery imagery: 350Mb
>> 
>> 3. Basecamp archive: ???Mb - contains discussions, documents etc
>> 
>> 4. Google Docs: ???Mb
>> 
>> I'm responsible for 1 and 2. Is that too much? I could take out the
>> map gallery but it is quite nice. Someone else will perhaps be in
>> touch about 3 and 4.
>> 
>> Could someone on the exec kickstart the process whereby I can put
>> these things, if OSGeo still want them, onto storage somewhere.
>> 
>> I don't know if OSGeo would rather put them on a filesystem or have
>> everything in SVN, in which case a new SVN repo for 1 and 2 would
>> probably be the thing, then I'd push everything to it.
>> 
>> If we don't get this done by end-of-year then I doubt it will get done
>> afterwards.
>> 
>> Barry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jo Cook <jocook at astuntechnology.com>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving
> Date: 4 December 2013 16:13:58 GMT
> To: Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com>
> Cc: discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> 
> I disagree completely about the basecamp archive. The whole purpose of what I'm doing at the moment is to archive it in a useful format, with discussion threads linking to files rather than a bunch of wiki pages. I appreciate that preserving things on the wiki is a good idea, and that's what we have been doing, but it might be worth holding off from dismissing the basecamp archive as useless until the archiving has been done. You will of course get the logos and other files separately (see Barry's original post, which no one has answered yet).
> 
> I also don't think that the lessons learnt page for 2013 is the right place to add personal opinions from the board about the archive- if you want to forbid the use of any communication tool for OSGeo conferences, apart from the mailing lists and wiki, then this should be specified in the RFP.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
> As for the  Basecamp archive, it's likely useless as-is, but what should
> be done is to extract out the individual parts (docs, raw logos) then
> upload them individually to SVN, and then move the discussions into
> OSGeo wiki pages.  Of course this is much easier to do from the
> beginning of the event planning.  We can add this to the 2013 lessons
> learned page for sure.
> 
> Thanks for taking this time to share your files.  They are super
> important for future FOSS4G local committees.
> 
> -jeff
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013-12-04 10:39 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> > The material for FOSS4G 2013 for possible archiving amounts to:
> >
> >  1. Static web site, including mapgallery HTML but not including
> > mapgallery images: 74Mb
> >
> >  2. MapGallery imagery: 350Mb
> >
> >  3. Basecamp archive: ???Mb - contains discussions, documents etc
> >
> >  4. Google Docs: ???Mb
> >
> > I'm responsible for 1 and 2. Is that too much? I could take out the
> > map gallery but it is quite nice. Someone else will perhaps be in
> > touch about 3 and 4.
> >
> > Could someone on the exec kickstart the process whereby I can put
> > these things, if OSGeo still want them, onto storage somewhere.
> >
> > I don't know if OSGeo would rather put them on a filesystem or have
> > everything in SVN, in which case a new SVN repo for 1 and 2 would
> > probably be the thing, then I'd push everything to it.
> >
> > If we don't get this done by end-of-year then I doubt it will get done
> > afterwards.
> >
> > Barry
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jo Cook
> Astun Technology Ltd, The Coach House, 17 West Street, Epsom, Surrey, KT18 7RL, UK 
> t:+44 7930 524 155
> iShare - Data integration and publishing platform
> 
> ***************************************** 
> 
> Company registration no. 5410695. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: 120 Manor Green Road, Epsom, Surrey, KT19 8LN VAT no. 864201149.
> 
> 
> 
> From: Alex Mandel <tech_dev at wildintellect.com>
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] FOSS4G 2013 Nottingham archiving
> Date: 4 December 2013 17:21:30 GMT
> To: Barry Rowlingson <b.rowlingson at lancaster.ac.uk>, Jo Cook <jocook at astuntechnology.com>
> Cc: osgeo-discuss <discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
> Reply-To: tech at wildintellect.com
> 
> 
> On 12/04/2013 08:00 AM, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Jo Cook <jocook at astuntechnology.com> wrote:
>>> There's already a repository for 2013 at
>>> http://svn.osgeo.org/osgeo/foss4g/2013/ it has some files in it (mainly bid
>>> documents at present that I uploaded at the start of the process). I'm
>>> currently wgetting the basecamp project that we were using, so I can verify
>>> that we will also be archiving that- however until it finishes I don't know
>>> how much disk space it's going to take up.
>> 
>> Okay, so as long as OSGeo isn't bothered with over 300Mb of map
>> gallery binaries (which shouldn't change) being upped there I'll get
>> on with it.
>> 
>> Barry
> 
> The size in general is not an issue. You're right that sticking that
> much in svn is usually a pain, but not if it's one time deal. This is a
> good question for the System Admin Committee to ponder though. I think
> most people would want a static clone of the site in some way to
> continue to exist, and we do have servers we can put that on.
> 
> So under this plan you would put it in svn, and we would checkout the
> subfolder to a web server and serve up the static copy.
> 
> Let's see if anyone else has a better idea this week.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20131205/b3211e6e/attachment-0002.html>