contact_info -- information on contacting various people at Tor
forms -- expense forms, timesheets, etc.
jobs -- an archive of (some) past job postings
manual_bridgedb -- a listing of bridges that we hand out by hand when asked
monthly_reports -- some old reports on what we were doing back in 2011/2012
newsleters -- some old newsletters we sent out in 2011/2012.
notes -- memoranda on some conversations and blog post drafts and whatnot.
proposals -- proposals we've made to various organizations
roadmaps -- old roadmap documentaations
supporting_organizations -- peopel who have helped us out, and what they said
tbb-qa -- information about TBB testers, information for TBB testers
todo-lists -- schedule info and todo lists for different TP members
Some of this information could become public. Some (like my home address and phone number) could go onto an internal wiki page, if we trust our ability to set that up. Some could go onto internal git repositories instead.
This is both a policy and technical issue.
To upload designs, you'll need to enable LFS and have an admin enable hashed storage. More information
Child items 0
Show closed items
No child items are currently assigned. Use child items to break down this issue into smaller parts.
Linked items 0
Link issues together to show that they're related.
Learn more.
Happy to help with creation of the git repos (please file extra tickets once something is decided). I'm happy with the current setup, also happy with any setup that has easy offline access, but won't veto a wiki if that's easier for anyone
For what it's worth a private wiki is something I've wanted on occasion too...
08:20 < atagar> (Gah, so many applications. With such a short time this is gonna be a chaotic mess.)08:25 < atagar> It would be nice if we had a private wiki. That would help a bit.
It would help with GSoC/SoP coordination. I'm a tad wary of 'secrecy creep' where we restrict things too much. But this could be addressed by someone who cares about transparency taking a periodic audit of the pages, asking 'does this really need to be secret?'.
Anyway, just my two cents. Love to see this move forward.
I don't actually know where this internal Subversion is, or whether it is still used. Either someone knowledgable could update this ticket or we can close it due to inactivity. Maybe the internal Subversion is working just fine as a solution for the things it is used for just now.
Trac: Reviewer: N/AtoN/A Status: assigned to needs_information Sponsor: N/AtoN/A
This system is used for legal documents and other related things. Some of the things mentioned in the ticket though are handled somewhere else at the moment. Not sure we should just close this. Maybe we should move it as a service ticket.
If it is currently used, the people that are using it should be the owners of this ticket. I don't think the git team can really make any progress with this ticket as it is.
can Nextcloud be used for this? i'd love to turn off SVN, and this is the biggest blocker (the other being #15948 (moved), which is the public stuff that's already archived...)
A separate NextCloud instance maybe. With only those users registered that need access. And configured to not allow sharing of documents outside of the instance, including webdav links. I have not verified that this is possible without making changes to NextCloud.
This puts a lot of trust in the NextCloud code being sane, at least authentication and document permission handling. And probably more that I don't understand. There's a web server there too.
well, if we really want to shutdown SVN and not just pile up new services instead of replacing old ones, we have to find a replacement.
right now, we're going to use NC to replace Storm, and we're sharing files there. if we don't trust it, we have a problem. the solution might be to use some other file sharing mechanism, but I would suggest we should stop using SVN. we could use private git repositories, is that a compromise that would be acceptable?
Note that I'm going to treat this ticket as being what it says it's about in the ticket description -- svninternal, not corpsvn.
I believe I am the only user of svninternal at this point, either reading or writing. And I'm fine stopping my use of it if it simplifies things for others.
So I believe that we can turn it off as a service, so long as we keep the files around for the future "sorting and filing and discarding" exercise that we're going to need to do.
When we get to that sorting step, we might decide to dump the files into nextcloud en masse to start, or we might decide to do some triaging on them first and only import the ones we want to import. We should stick the files somewhere and open a new ticket for that triaging, once we turn off the svninternal service.
Also, when we do turn off svninternal, we can disable the tor-svninternal@lists.tpo list which is where commits get sent currently.
i think the bottomline here is most people don't use this and arma is basically the only user. we are unsure about sue, but we ping'd her on it. we're waiting for a response, so let's wait another week for this.
i marked this as "needs review" in case anyone else wanted to push back on this before that release date... we got the feedback from sue and we're go for turning this thing off, which i will do now.
Trac: Owner: tor-gitadm to anarcat Status: needs_review to accepted
It should make the repository inaccessible to anyone but root. To revert, use chmod 755.
I think we can consider this fixed and look at the other repositories needing to be turned off here.
Or is there some archiving to be done here? Do we want to keep this data at all or can it be destroyed forever? Because it will be destroyed when gayi is decommissioned unless we archive it somewhere else.