[NCUC E-team] [NCUC Finance] Hosting the NCUC E-Platform

Tue Feb 26 17:44:55 CET 2013

Wilson,

If we don't hear any objections in the next 24 hours, how about we send it
to the EC for consideration?

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Wilson Abigaba <wilson at isoc.ug> wrote:

> Thanks Brenden!
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Brenden Kuerbis <
> bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I've taken the liberty of revising the VPS request based on your comments
>> and discussion on list(s).  Please take a quick peek, but I believe its
>> ready to ship off to the EC for approval.  Lets get moving on this so we
>> can setup the VPS, an instance of WordPress and migrate the email lists.
>>
>> -- B
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Wilson Abigaba <wilson at isoc.ug> wrote:
>>
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> Below is the feedback I have gotten from finance team so far. Points
>>> are randomly listed.
>>> - We need to create a platform that is not technically demanding  and
>>> time consuming so that it can be easily maintained beyond the current
>>> team.
>>> - We need to add more detail about specific requirements and costs
>>> - I think we need to justify why we should drop ning and adopt a VPS
>>> - Proposal should be sent to (and approved by) the EC
>>> - We might also need to formally consider (at least 3, as per the
>>> standard procurement procedures) other vendors so that we justify why
>>> Gandi was chosen.
>>>
>>> I am stepping out for a few hours but here is our current proposal. I
>>> think we can edit it concurrently and send it to EC by end of today.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NxYgmqlhoBX9BQJOIcZ6EVsbctzn3WZHMGDty63xLxs/edit
>>>
>>> Reading Tapani's response below, I personally wouldn't recommend
>>> anything significantly below the suggested $400 as I think it's
>>> already at 'minimum requirement' considering what we want to do :)
>>>
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Wilson
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Tapani Tarvainen
>>> <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:01:06PM +0100, William Drake (
>>> william.drake at uzh.ch) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Feb 20, 2013, at 22:22, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> > One must be careful of ongoing expenditures, especially if they
>>> >> > lock us in to anything that would be costly to get out of, but
>>> >> > $400/year is certainly not out of reach.
>>> >
>>> >> > It does seem a bit high (without knowing the requirements) as the
>>> >> > current Ning site is $235/year but if VPS does something that
>>> >> > normal hosting doesn't, I am sure you can convince EC to approve
>>> >> > it.
>>> >
>>> >> Wilson and Tapani, were there other vendors/options? Agree with MM a
>>> >> little more detail/background wouldn't I hurt for an ongoing
>>> >> expenditure, even if it's less for a decade than we spend at a time
>>> >> on other stuff.
>>> >
>>> > We did not do a formal comparison of vendors, it was felt
>>> > unnecessary due to the relatively small amount involved and
>>> > the fact that we already are using Gandi for DNS registration
>>> > so using it for hosting as well avoids extra work in account
>>> > management. But we did discuss the features we wanted
>>> > (listed in Wilson's document) and we're well enough aware of
>>> > the market situation to know Gandi is cheap for what they offer.
>>> >
>>> > We could cut down on the $400 figure, however, by settling on a less
>>> > powerful VPS. The smallest available VPS at Gandi would be about
>>> > $170/year or $16/month (or $0.53/day!), and if you want to keep
>>> > tighter rein on the expenditure we could start with that.
>>> > It would probably to run out of power pretty soon though if we get
>>> > around to doing all we've been planning to, but it would be enough to
>>> > get us started and buying more oomph in small chunks only as needed
>>> > is of course possible, even down to daily basis if desired.
>>> > The downside there would be the extra time required to manage it
>>> > and to process and approve the bills piecemeal.
>>> > So I guess it boils down to how much people's time is worth, how
>>> > small amounts merit a separate decision in the EC, how much time
>>> > the sysadmins need to spend to monitor the machine and adjust
>>> > it as needed, &c.
>>> >
>>> > One possibly money-saving alternative would be for the EC to authorize
>>> > expenditure of up to a certain amount, like that $400, but
>>> > recommending that it be used cautiously, buying more power bit by bit
>>> > as the need arises. That way it would only use up e-team's and
>>> > Milton's time rather than EC's and could be done faster.
>>> > That's actually a good reason for having some pre-approved
>>> > budget not spent at once, we might have an unexpected peak
>>> > in bandwitdh or something we'd like to react to fast
>>> > (maybe some outreach effort explodes our popularity and
>>> > we get a billion people hitting our site at once...)
>>> >
>>> > But, since we're just starting to work out new processes here,
>>> > I would be OK with going slowly: as I said that $170 would be
>>> > enough to get us started, just don't be surprised when the
>>> > e-team asks for more later.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Tapani Tarvainen
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Finance mailing list
>>> > Finance at lists.ncuc.org
>>> > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/finance
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> E-team mailing list
>>> E-team at lists.ncuc.org
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/e-team
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> E-team mailing list
>> E-team at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/e-team
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/e-team/attachments/20130226/c2a412a3/attachment.html>