📅 Original date posted:2013-12-08
📝 Original message:> > 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 <http://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.
Saïvann Carignan [ARCHIVE] /
npub16l…9pqjm
2023-06-07 17:10:29
in reply to nevent1q…deyp
Author Public Key
npub16lyqvgruy8k0mmn9f3gqr69w0xlahmzlc6x6lq95amk6uppffm3q69pqjmPublished at
2023-06-07 17:10:29Event JSON
{
"id": "bc59512846d051a0f31578d8970cb33649819d12e6e8aeaaa864b6008dad0145",
"pubkey": "d7c806207c21ecfdee654c5001e8ae79bfdbec5fc68daf80b4eeedae04294ee2",
"created_at": 1686150629,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d517aa463a22abef5f03468f652eeefb44676da99926537d88111078c3e0468b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b76dc804e3c4426793a09a94d13f2d6b713ab7bf7b2e4b61b45115e3dc9f8cc9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2013-12-08\n📝 Original message:\u003e \u003e 4) Who admins it?\n\u003e \n\u003e Obviously, I thought it would be important that the server is owned by\n\u003e someone who can be trusted, with ssh access for all core developers.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e That is a really bad idea. If there is not a CLEAR answer to \"who\n\u003e admins it\", there will be a bunch of \"I thought YOU were applying\n\u003e security patches... no, I thought YOU were...\" the first time it gets\n\u003e hacked.\n\u003e \n\u003e So, the question is: who wants to take responsibility for keeping\n\u003e bitcoin.org \u003chttp://bitcoin.org\u003e safe and secure?\n\u003e \n\u003e I am not going to do that, I've got too many other things to worry\n\u003e about. It is exactly the type of thing the Foundation was setup to do,\n\u003e but if y'all want to create some other organization to do it, then\n\u003e please make it happen.\n\u003e \n\u003e -- \n\u003e --\n\u003e Gavin Andresen\n\u003e \n\nI fully agree that someone *must* be assigned to the task, otherwise\nit's better keeping current hosting.\n\nPerhaps that was implicit, but I can take this responsibility so long as\nI can be replaced if required for any reason. On this regard, I agree\nthat the Foundation funding / owning / securing the server\ninfrastructure is a much better long term strategy.\n\nThis said, I also agree that it is a better idea to keep the domain and\nwebsite content independently owned and managed, for the reasons stated\nby Gregory Maxwell.\n\nIf there isn't a good consensus on one of the two options I suggested, I\nvote we don't lose more time on this question and keep focus with bigger\npriorities.",
"sig": "bff39ae875c422b1a461b334c3fdb5427c0f191958a23c140f8e28381ba4a79864c48ee47ec1c3156b483946822651f641e94f3ee342bc3751166afc391aaadb"
}