[Finance] Future Hosting finance position

[s t e f]

<quote who='Martin Burns' when='15/02/04 21:35'>

> Hola all
> 
quoting your last sentence fist:
 > Right, braindump over. Let's talk. I don't want this to be a simple
 > 'no-one pipes up' or just a vote. We need to talk this one through.

Since no one's piped up, shall I?

Preamble: I'm quite new to this side of things, evolt-wise, as you all 
know. So I may say some silly things, just be patient, OK?

> Where we should be
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> While I think that it's been absolutely excellent that we've relied (and 
> at the moment continue to rely) on hosting donated by individuals, and 
> mean absolutely zero ingratitude to those that provide it (which 
> includes me btw), I think that it's non-ideal to rely on 
> personally-provided hosted as

(edited out as:)
a) ability and desire of small number of individuals, no backups for leo 
and weo.

This is a big concern indeed.

b) negociation power.

I can't see the point, I'll just sum up your points and come back to that.

c) we can afford the price, we've got the money (and, if no money left, 
back to voluntary hosting).

Yeah, point taken.

Ok, so basically what I think is this:

Point (a) is crucial and sounds to me like it should be addressed one 
way or another very seriously and soon. The question of the little 
number of individuals is also crucial because we've come close to 
shutting down a few times and didn't because of nice enough people

Point (b), as I said: I can't see the point. We've been among friends, 
and although I see what you're implying (we wouldn't negociate harshly 
with friends), what's the need of negociation? -- or, more accurately, 
has it ever arisen?

Point (c), well-- remembering a famous rant (was it by tara?) about 
putting your money where your mouth is and how evolt has very few bucks 
to spare compared to the service it provides, I wonder if the cash that 
is left would not be put to better use as a safety net, in case of 
crashes, emergency movements like the ones that happened before, etc.

So, my conclusion at this point is: point (b), I don't see the point. 
Point (a) could be covered by the cash we could pay according to point (c).

Did I sum it up accurately?

I don't see any problem in your reasoning, except, seen from outside the 
realm of hosting expenditures etc, that of course I'm content with the 
status-quo, having neither to manage nor to move the machines around.


-- 
s t e f
http://www.nota-bene.org/