rich1.0npub16lyqvgruy8k0mmn9f3gqr69w0xlahmzlc6x6lq95amk6uppffm3q69pqjmhttps://nostr.ae/npub16lyqvgruy8k0mmn9f3gqr69w0xlahmzlc6x6lq95amk6uppffm3q69pqjmnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 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.