[gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Alec Warner]

Hello,

Currently a number of developers have engaged Google Apps Team Edition
for gentoo.org.  However Team Edition does not come with gmail and a
subset of Team Edition users would like to host their gentoo.org mail
on gmail.
Activating Standard Edition is free and likely requires minimal
configuration on dev.gentoo.org to setup.  Standard Edition comes with
Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Mail, Google Sites, Google Video,
and probably a bunch of other stuff we could turn on.

This service would be opt-in (only devs that want an account get one).
 Infra should continue to offer standard mail services on
smtp.gentoo.org.

All content that is what I would term 'of value' to the community
should be available anonymously; that is you should not need to sign
up for a Google Account to be able to access documents in a read-only
fashion.  Writing documents will require sign-in (similarly to how the
calendar works in a previous thread.)

This thread is primarily engaged in gauging interest in such a setup.
Please reply if you are interested (or go vote on the bug.)

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/312037

-A

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 911 bytes --]

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 01:28:56 Alec Warner wrote:
> Currently a number of developers have engaged Google Apps Team Edition
> for gentoo.org.  However Team Edition does not come with gmail and a
> subset of Team Edition users would like to host their gentoo.org mail
> on gmail.
> Activating Standard Edition is free and likely requires minimal
> configuration on dev.gentoo.org to setup.  Standard Edition comes with
> Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Mail, Google Sites, Google Video,
> and probably a bunch of other stuff we could turn on.

i dont really know anything about these Google things you refer to.  could you 
provide URLs and/or some summary background ?

personally, i just created a dedicated gmail account and set my dev.g.o 
forward to that.  then i fetch the mail from gmail's pop interface.  how do 
these offerings provide anything over that sort of setup ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Alec Warner]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 01:28:56 Alec Warner wrote:
>> Currently a number of developers have engaged Google Apps Team Edition
>> for gentoo.org.  However Team Edition does not come with gmail and a
>> subset of Team Edition users would like to host their gentoo.org mail
>> on gmail.
>> Activating Standard Edition is free and likely requires minimal
>> configuration on dev.gentoo.org to setup.  Standard Edition comes with
>> Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Mail, Google Sites, Google Video,
>> and probably a bunch of other stuff we could turn on.
>
> i dont really know anything about these Google things you refer to.  could you
> provide URLs and/or some summary background ?

Well you know about calendar since you use it ;p

The corporate spiel is here.

http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/group/index.html

>
> personally, i just created a dedicated gmail account and set my dev.g.o
> forward to that.  then i fetch the mail from gmail's pop interface.  how do
> these offerings provide anything over that sort of setup ?
> -mike
>

That requires giving gmail your pop password which not everyone likes.
 In this setup you could use your d.g.o procmail to forward mail to
something like 'google-hosted.mail.gentoo.org' which would stuff it in
gentoo.org gmail account and you gentoo.org account could be your
d.g.o password, or something different.

-A

PS: I am affiliated with Google, but I don't get sales bonuses.  This
thread is in response to a random request I received from another
developer.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Alec Warner]

Brian suggested I give more details, so here is more information ;)

23:36 < ferringb> antarus: why are we getting it for free offhand?
23:36 < ferringb> well, getting this moreso
23:37 < ferringb> (yes, I will look a gift horse in the mouth- it can
quickly become a cash-sinkhole if the horse hasn't had proper dental
mantenance)
23:37 < ferringb> or something equivalent.  either way, what prompted all this?
23:40 < antarus> ferringb: RANDOMGUY emailed me
23:40 < antarus> Standard Edition is free
23:40 < antarus> and we are a non-profit so Educational Edition is also free
23:41 < ferringb> haven't heard that name in a long while
23:41 < antarus> yeah
23:41 < ferringb> presume you're refering to the user
23:41 < antarus> anyway we have 4 devs on 'team edition' right now
23:41 < antarus> so I wanted to gauge interest
23:41 < ferringb> team edition is wat?
23:41 < antarus> ferringb: individual domain users sign up but haev no
domain admin
23:41 < antarus> limited doc sharing stuff, no email, etc...
23:42 < ferringb> 'k
23:42 < ferringb> so...
23:42 < ferringb> why don't you go write a *proper* response to spanky
w/ this info instead of a freaking link?
23:42 < ferringb> ya lazy bastard?
23:42 < antarus> I'm le tired, I will nap and then fire ze missiles?

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 01:28:56 Alec Warner wrote:
>>> Currently a number of developers have engaged Google Apps Team Edition
>>> for gentoo.org.  However Team Edition does not come with gmail and a
>>> subset of Team Edition users would like to host their gentoo.org mail
>>> on gmail.
>>> Activating Standard Edition is free and likely requires minimal
>>> configuration on dev.gentoo.org to setup.  Standard Edition comes with
>>> Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Mail, Google Sites, Google Video,
>>> and probably a bunch of other stuff we could turn on.
>>
>> i dont really know anything about these Google things you refer to.  could you
>> provide URLs and/or some summary background ?
>
> Well you know about calendar since you use it ;p
>
> The corporate spiel is here.
>
> http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/group/index.html
>
>>
>> personally, i just created a dedicated gmail account and set my dev.g.o
>> forward to that.  then i fetch the mail from gmail's pop interface.  how do
>> these offerings provide anything over that sort of setup ?
>> -mike
>>
>
> That requires giving gmail your pop password which not everyone likes.
>  In this setup you could use your d.g.o procmail to forward mail to
> something like 'google-hosted.mail.gentoo.org' which would stuff it in
> gentoo.org gmail account and you gentoo.org account could be your
> d.g.o password, or something different.
>
> -A
>
> PS: I am affiliated with Google, but I don't get sales bonuses.  This
> thread is in response to a random request I received from another
> developer.
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2163 bytes --]

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 02:24:24 Alec Warner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 01:28:56 Alec Warner wrote:
> >> Currently a number of developers have engaged Google Apps Team Edition
> >> for gentoo.org.  However Team Edition does not come with gmail and a
> >> subset of Team Edition users would like to host their gentoo.org mail
> >> on gmail.
> >> Activating Standard Edition is free and likely requires minimal
> >> configuration on dev.gentoo.org to setup.  Standard Edition comes with
> >> Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Mail, Google Sites, Google Video,
> >> and probably a bunch of other stuff we could turn on.
> > 
> > i dont really know anything about these Google things you refer to.
> >  could you provide URLs and/or some summary background ?
> 
> Well you know about calendar since you use it ;p
> 
> The corporate spiel is here.
> 
> http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/group/index.html

yes, but i dont see what "Google Apps Team Edition" or "Standard Edition" gets 
me vs me simply going to gmail.com and creating a new account ... same for the 
calendar

> > personally, i just created a dedicated gmail account and set my dev.g.o
> > forward to that.  then i fetch the mail from gmail's pop interface.  how
> > do these offerings provide anything over that sort of setup ?
> 
> That requires giving gmail your pop password which not everyone likes.
>  In this setup you could use your d.g.o procmail to forward mail to
> something like 'google-hosted.mail.gentoo.org' which would stuff it in
> gentoo.org gmail account and you gentoo.org account could be your
> d.g.o password, or something different.

i'm already using ~/.forward which means mail still goes to mail.g.o and that 
server takes care of forwarding it to my private gmail.com account.  then my 
mail client fetches it from gmail.com via the normal pop/imap methods.  there 
is no need to share passwords between gmail.com and g.o.

so i dont see what advantage this process ive been using for years has over 
this method.  they look pretty much equivalent.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Joe Peterson]

On 03/31/2010 02:18 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> i'm already using ~/.forward which means mail still goes to mail.g.o and that 
> server takes care of forwarding it to my private gmail.com account.  then my 
> mail client fetches it from gmail.com via the normal pop/imap methods.  there 
> is no need to share passwords between gmail.com and g.o.
> 
> so i dont see what advantage this process ive been using for years has over 
> this method.  they look pretty much equivalent.
> -mike

Hey Mike,

You are right that what you are doing gives you the ability to use gmail
for this.  However, there's one key thing that turning on Standard
Edition does:

It's a "Google Apps" account, not just a Gmail account.  You cannot have
more than one gmail account open in your browser at one time - the
cookies are not separate.  Whereas you *can* have your gmail and all of
your google apps accounts (in different domains) open at one time.

Those, like me, who have several google apps accounts (I have a personal
business one, a personal one, and a work one) can keep accounts separate
this way.  Also, since it's the "gentoo.org" google apps account, the
email address looks the same as your gentoo address (rather than
foo-gentoo@gmail.com, etc.).

What Alec was asking is why not turn on the feature.  It just enables
more functionality for those who want to use it.  It just requires we
verify that we "own" gentoo.org.

-Joe

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1114 bytes --]

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 12:11:30 Joe Peterson wrote:
> It's a "Google Apps" account, not just a Gmail account.  You cannot have
> more than one gmail account open in your browser at one time - the
> cookies are not separate.  Whereas you *can* have your gmail and all of
> your google apps accounts (in different domains) open at one time.

OK

> Those, like me, who have several google apps accounts (I have a personal
> business one, a personal one, and a work one) can keep accounts separate
> this way.  Also, since it's the "gentoo.org" google apps account, the
> email address looks the same as your gentoo address (rather than
> foo-gentoo@gmail.com, etc.).

this too has been doable forever.  gmail has had a feature where you can set 
the From: address to any e-maill address once you "verified" it was your e-
mail address.

> What Alec was asking is why not turn on the feature.  It just enables
> more functionality for those who want to use it.  It just requires we
> verify that we "own" gentoo.org.

i'm not against the idea, i was just wondering what the point was
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Joe Peterson]

On 03/31/2010 01:40 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> Those, like me, who have several google apps accounts (I have a personal
>> business one, a personal one, and a work one) can keep accounts separate
>> this way.  Also, since it's the "gentoo.org" google apps account, the
>> email address looks the same as your gentoo address (rather than
>> foo-gentoo@gmail.com, etc.).
>
> this too has been doable forever.  gmail has had a feature where you can set 
> the From: address to any e-maill address once you "verified" it was your e-
> mail address.

Well, that's slightly different.  I use that too, but it means you need
to have all your mail coming into one account.  Yes, you can send from
different senders, but if you want to totally separate your email to
your different addresses into different boxes, this won't work.  Even
labeling is not foolproof, since emails that are to lists or to bcc'd
addresses (i.e. do not contain your address in the header) cannot be
labeled accordingly.

> i'm not against the idea, i was just wondering what the point was

Cool.  :)

-Joe

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Duncan]

Alec Warner posted on Tue, 30 Mar 2010 22:28:56 -0700 as excerpted:

> All content that is what I would term 'of value' to the community should
> be available anonymously; that is you should not need to sign up for a
> Google Account to be able to access documents in a read-only fashion. 
> Writing documents will require sign-in (similarly to how the calendar
> works in a previous thread.)

Thanks for taking care to verify and state that, this time. =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Ben de Groot]

On 31 March 2010 07:28, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This thread is primarily engaged in gauging interest in such a setup.
> Please reply if you are interested (or go vote on the bug.)

I am definitely interested.

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Sebastian Pipping]

Hello,


On 03/31/10 07:28, Alec Warner wrote:
> Currently a number of developers have engaged Google Apps Team Edition
> for gentoo.org.  However Team Edition does not come with gmail and a
> subset of Team Edition users would like to host their gentoo.org mail
> on gmail.
> Activating Standard Edition is free and likely requires minimal
> configuration on dev.gentoo.org to setup.  Standard Edition comes with
> Google Docs, Google Calendar, Google Mail, Google Sites, Google Video,
> and probably a bunch of other stuff we could turn on.

I am worried that if people start using say Google Docs for
collaborating on Gentoo content, everyone else is forced to use Google
Docs to participate.

While I do appreciate projects like TechTalks and Summer of Code I
personally do not trust Google with my data.  Also, most of these
services are not Free Software -- I don't trust non-free software.
If they are let's run our instance, not theirs.
if they aren't lets go for something else.

Btw if we really need a shared web-calendar let's make a project for
that and get it done.  Ironically, it may even fit for GSOC.


> This service would be opt-in (only devs that want an account get one).
>  Infra should continue to offer standard mail services on
> smtp.gentoo.org.

As mentioned before: Opt-in is an illusion from the point on, where
people need the same piece of software to collaborate.  May not apply to
some (Google Mail) but sure does to others.


> This thread is primarily engaged in gauging interest in such a setup.
> Please reply if you are interested (or go vote on the bug.)

To be very clear: Please take my vote against increasing dependencies on
Google.

On a side note: This is not a technical discussion only.
As such please use gentoo-core for this next time.  Thanks.



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 426 bytes --]

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 16:28:15 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> To be very clear: Please take my vote against increasing dependencies on
> Google.

so dont use it

> On a side note: This is not a technical discussion only.
> As such please use gentoo-core for this next time.  Thanks.

incorrect ... it should either be gentoo-dev or gentoo-project.  there is no 
need for use of the closed gentoo-core list.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 03/31/10 23:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 31 March 2010 16:28:15 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> To be very clear: Please take my vote against increasing dependencies on
>> Google.
> 
> so dont use it
> 
>> On a side note: This is not a technical discussion only.
>> As such please use gentoo-core for this next time.  Thanks.
> 
> incorrect ... it should either be gentoo-dev or gentoo-project.  there is no 
> need for use of the closed gentoo-core list.
> -mike

did you even read all of my mail?


i cannot "not use it" - that's my point.  i'll be forced to, forced in
or forced out.

it's nothing for gentoo-dev as it's not purely technical.
can it be more obvious?



sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1504 bytes --]

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 17:33:17 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 03/31/10 23:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 31 March 2010 16:28:15 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> >> To be very clear: Please take my vote against increasing dependencies on
> >> Google.
> > 
> > so dont use it
> > 
> >> On a side note: This is not a technical discussion only.
> >> As such please use gentoo-core for this next time.  Thanks.
> > 
> > incorrect ... it should either be gentoo-dev or gentoo-project.  there is
> > no need for use of the closed gentoo-core list.
> 
> did you even read all of my mail?

take it down a notch

> i cannot "not use it" - that's my point.  i'll be forced to, forced in
> or forced out.

no one is forcing you to, nor is anyone talking about having teams use it.  if 
Gentoo developers themselves choose to, it's going to happen irregardless of 
what Alec is proposing.

> it's nothing for gentoo-dev as it's not purely technical.
> can it be more obvious?

your logic does not lead to the statement that gentoo-core is the appropriate 
place.  as i already suggested, gentoo-project is an alternative to gentoo-dev 
for non-technical issues.  as has been said many times in the past,  gentoo-
core should not be thought of as the "non-technical gentoo-dev alternative".

a bit ironic you espouse using open source software on fully controlled 
systems in one half while suggesting people use the closed gentoo-core mailing 
list in another ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 04/01/10 01:09, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> no one is forcing you to, nor is anyone talking about having teams use it.  if 
> Gentoo developers themselves choose to, it's going to happen irregardless of 
> what Alec is proposing.

we are talking about public, shared work on gentoo - not about stuff
people do in private.


> your logic does not lead to the statement that gentoo-core is the appropriate 
> place.

point takes, it's not the non-technical nature - i should put it
clearer: it's the fact that everyone on the net will be able to read
what anyone said on google in this thread.  any one of us may change his
mind on that but the internet won't.
does that make it clear now why that thread belongs to gentoo-core to me?


> a bit ironic you espouse using open source software on fully controlled 
> systems in one half while suggesting people use the closed gentoo-core mailing 
> list in another ...

not every kind of open and closed are in contrast.  i don't see any
irony here.  the FSF is doing PR strategy stuff behind closed doors too,
what's the problem?



sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 996 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:49:15AM +0200, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> point takes, it's not the non-technical nature - i should put it
> clearer: it's the fact that everyone on the net will be able to read
> what anyone said on google in this thread.  any one of us may change his
> mind on that but the internet won't.

Welcome to the internet.  Things get archived, for example that 
crappy emo poem you posted after a bad breakup a decade ago is ready 
and waiting to haunt you via the wayback machine.


> does that make it clear now why that thread belongs to gentoo-core to me?

You're invalidly assuming that people don't keep mail archives.  For 
reference, I still have my archives for all of -core, including every 
dumb ass thing people said on that ml.


Either way, it's not really a justification to go closed discussion, 
more importantly this thread is well past being relevant to -dev 
(it's not technical) so take it to -project please.

Thanks-
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 31-03-2010 23:49, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 04/01/10 01:09, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> your logic does not lead to the statement that gentoo-core is the appropriate 
>> place.
> 
> point takes, it's not the non-technical nature - i should put it
> clearer: it's the fact that everyone on the net will be able to read
> what anyone said on google in this thread.  any one of us may change his
> mind on that but the internet won't.
> does that make it clear now why that thread belongs to gentoo-core to me?

Nothing we write in an email is private from the moment it leaves our
mail client and is processed in a mail server. I understand your point,
but you should be aware that in the past mails sent to the core ml have
been leaked. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. So you better be
prepared to have them exposed to the world.
In any case, the point in using the core ml is to discuss sensitive and
or security related issues, get feedback from the developer community
before starting a discussion in the dev ml and or inform developers
about very specific issues like job offers. It's also important to
remember that we have a policy of doing Gentoo development through open
discussions. Therefore, this thread should have been started in the
project ml.

> sebastian

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=X2Go
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 976 bytes --]

On Wednesday 31 March 2010 19:49:15 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 04/01/10 01:09, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > no one is forcing you to, nor is anyone talking about having teams use
> > it.  if Gentoo developers themselves choose to, it's going to happen
> > irregardless of what Alec is proposing.
> 
> we are talking about public, shared work on gentoo - not about stuff
> people do in private.

not necessarily.  we're talking about Gentoo developers using Google features 
however they see fit.  not everything done via your g.o e-mail address is 
required to be Gentoo related, nor will it ever be.

if a Gentoo dev as part of a Gentoo project started requiring Google docs to 
collaborate, then we can address the missing needs at that time if people feel 
that the Google requirement is "restrictive".

the rest of your gentoo-dev vs gentoo-core logic has been addressed by 
Brian/Jorge -- this is the internet, you have no privacy, get over it.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 04/01/10 02:44, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the rest of your gentoo-dev vs gentoo-core logic has been addressed by 
> Brian/Jorge -- this is the internet, you have no privacy, get over it.

privacy is not black and white.  i'm aware there's no leak-free zone.
i have put my point clear before, if that's where we stay - be it.



sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Joe Peterson]

On 03/31/2010 02:28 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> I am worried that if people start using say Google Docs for
> collaborating on Gentoo content, everyone else is forced to use Google
> Docs to participate.

Gentoo could set policies that such shared resources should not be done
via google calender, or if it is, then the calender is exported to
everyone (or piped to another ical type service where everyone can
interact).

I'm mainly interested in the ability to use the gmail interface, which
is transparent to anyone not using it.  It's just what the person who
decides to use it sees.  Just as now you can forward your incoming mail
to any server you want anyway.

-Joe

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Google Apps Standard Edition @ gentoo.org

[Vincent Launchbury]

On 03/31/10 16:28, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> I am worried that if people start using say Google Docs for
> collaborating on Gentoo content, everyone else is forced to use Google
> Docs to participate.
>
> While I do appreciate projects like TechTalks and Summer of Code I
> personally do not trust Google with my data.  Also, most of these
> services are not Free Software -- I don't trust non-free software.
> If they are let's run our instance, not theirs.
> if they aren't lets go for something else.

While I'm not a developer, so it won't affect me, I do agree with 
Sebastian here. Note that google can change their features at any time, 
so if you use their services for anything serious, keep in mind that 
they are controlling how you do so. You may laugh at this, but it has 
had an effect before.

Take google analytics for instance, when they pushed the big redesign a 
couple of years ago. Several features were removed (marketing summary 
for one), and selecting date ranges can now only be done in flash. Gnash 
doesn't work well enough yet, so analytics is essentially crippled for 
free software users.

> Btw if we really need a shared web-calendar let's make a project for
> that and get it done.  Ironically, it may even fit for GSOC.

Google may be fine now, and fit perfectly. But in the long term, I'd 
agree that developing our own calendar would be a good idea. If there 
isn't a decent free solution out there already, then developing one from 
scratch would likely help out other projects too.

Just my two cents.