From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VpoYo-0003iT-JV for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:18:54 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.223.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.223.171; envelope-from=saivann@gmail.com; helo=mail-ie0-f171.google.com; Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VpoYn-0004MJ-QY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:18:54 +0000 Received: by mail-ie0-f171.google.com with SMTP id ar20so5044150iec.30 for ; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:18:48 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.42.47.201 with SMTP id p9mr11880067icf.4.1386548328513; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:18:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([199.192.237.161]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p14sm11446353igr.7.2013.12.08.16.18.46 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:18:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52A5053C.5050801@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:48:12 -0500 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sa=EFvann_Carignan?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gavin Andresen References: <52A3C8A5.7010606@gmail.com> <1795f3067ba3fcdd0caf978cc59ff024.squirrel@fruiteater.riseup.net> <52A435EA.7090405@gmail.com> <201312081237.24473.luke@dashjr.org> <52A4E199.3000209@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (saivann[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: bitcoin.org] -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1VpoYn-0004MJ-QY Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Dedicated server for bitcoin.org, your thoughts? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:18:54 -0000 > > 4) Who admins it? > > Obviously, I thought it would be important that the server is owned by > someone who can be trusted, with ssh access for all core developers. > > > That is a really bad idea. If there is not a CLEAR answer to "who > admins it", there will be a bunch of "I thought YOU were applying > security patches... no, I thought YOU were..." the first time it gets > hacked. > > So, the question is: who wants to take responsibility for keeping > bitcoin.org safe and secure? > > I am not going to do that, I've got too many other things to worry > about. It is exactly the type of thing the Foundation was setup to do, > but if y'all want to create some other organization to do it, then > please make it happen. > > -- > -- > Gavin Andresen > I fully agree that someone *must* be assigned to the task, otherwise it's better keeping current hosting. Perhaps that was implicit, but I can take this responsibility so long as I can be replaced if required for any reason. On this regard, I agree that the Foundation funding / owning / securing the server infrastructure is a much better long term strategy. This said, I also agree that it is a better idea to keep the domain and website content independently owned and managed, for the reasons stated by Gregory Maxwell. If there isn't a good consensus on one of the two options I suggested, I vote we don't lose more time on this question and keep focus with bigger priorities.