I would personally vote to move getfedora.org to https://fedoraproject.org/ proper (aka, the homepage), and other services to $service.fedoraproject.org.
Subdomains are a lot easier to manage from both a sysadmin and security point of view than subdirectories under the same domain name.

However, a few websites, amongst which Pagure and Fedora Magazine, should not be going under the fedoraproject.org domain name in my opinion, also due to security reasons.
Web browsers block cross site scripting and other things between different top-level domains, but not for subdomains, and the risk for XSS or the likes to be injected via Wordpress or Pagure are very high.

so the split between getfedora.org and fedoraproject.org is users vs contributors

if we put getfedora.org content under fedoraproject.org, we reintroduce the same problem of having too many divergent audiences for the fpo domain. the eventual goal is that fedoraproject.org == hubs, and is the center of the contributor community.

can we put magazine under getfedora.org somehow in a secure manner?

Magazine under getfedora.org is totally fine with me.
My problem was primarily with wordpress and other dynamic webapps critical to the infra on the same domain, and getfedora.org has none of that :).

I'm not a big fan of redirects (people expect you to keep them forever, they make it hard to tell where problems really are, they cause configuration pain sometimes), but I suppose we can do them if we need them. (and set some specific sunset date, like a year).

Note we have also: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5644 which is a ticket about making out apps consistently be at fedoraproject.org subdomains, so that could be done around the same time as this. Perhaps we could fold these tickets together?

The search people really felt that we should have redirects in place as long as there are incoming links.

so the split between getfedora.org and fedoraproject.org is users vs contributors

I understand this as a way of focusing the design of the site, but I don't think we want to put up a big wall between those groups in Fedora.

In looking around mozilla.org I found their "get involved" page at https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contribute/signup/ — notice that the very first actions suggested for involvement are:

1. Follow on social media
2. Download and use our main software
3. Learn about an issue we find important

if we put getfedora.org content under fedoraproject.org, we reintroduce the same problem of having too many divergent audiences for the fpo domain. the eventual goal is that fedoraproject.org == hubs, and is the center of the contributor community.

I'm not sure the audience we want is really so divergent. Even assuming we want some separation, I don't think that necessarily means separate domains. For example, on redhat.com, there are sections for customers, partners, and developers — very separate audiences, but still all on the same site.

can we put magazine under getfedora.org somehow in a secure manner?

That seems weird simply from a naming point of view.

@mattdm you should watch my keynote at OLF, they are divergent -

i think right now maybe they are not, but thats evidence of a bit of an echo chamber, i dont think we want their venn diagrams to overlap so much. we walk away from a lot of potential to make a difference in the world if we dont go after users we dpnt have no?

maybe getfedora.org isnt the right domain for users. maybe we do fedoraos.org or smtg like that. the reason the plan waa to reserve fpo for contributors is bc the connotation of project makes it seem about the bldg of the thing and maybe not necessarily the thing itself.

also note by contributor i mean person who contributes to fedora, not floss. theres a lot of ppl in the developer audience we want who arent going to have the time / interest to contrib to fedora (and that should be fine) if we limit ourseves to fedora contribs were just bldg it for ourselves and i question the entire point of that - we need yet another rewrite of the mission and the vision and all that other stuff.

(sorry on phone posted before i was done)

I definitely want to go after users we don't have. However, our target is still users in the early adopter and innovator segments, and I don't think there's a big benefit in having a gigantic firewall between those users and project activity. Even to users who aren't going to be direct contributors, being assured of the health and activity of the project is a strength, and some may want to keep up with the high-level goings-on.

we can connect the two without making them the same to show the activity. an innovator is going to want to work on what they are innvoating on tho, not fedora. they are going to want to use fedora as a platform and will care about grtting info / support on it but primary concern i dont think would be contributing back as directly as i would think wed intend contributor focused sites and apps would be tailored for. unless i am totally missing smtg.

do you have any resources on this target from a mktg / targeting pov driving the idea the two sides of the web presence must be the same? this is a massive change from our web strategy and not smtg to be done lightly imho

(my proposal wpuld be to merge developer.fpo, getfedora.org, and magazine under one domain and the rest at fpo. this would accomodate security concerns raised above (developer.fpo is static) and the developer focus of developer.fpo would give a better tailoring towards eaely adopter / innovator but focused on their innovations not ours... having an explicit delineation imho is going to make things more intuitive. eg is the resource for a user vs contributor. we naturally have a split between user and contrib channels in irc. i think theres a reason for that. )

I'm not saying we don't want different parts of the site or even different sites for different audiences.

Can you help me understand why having things at disparate domain names is important for this? (c.f. Mozilla using mozilla.org for everything — even firefox.com redirects there now).

sure, bc fedoraproject.org is very long, and as i said earlier bc its $xproject it has the connotation of being about the bldg of the thing rather than the thing itself - the project to build it. it sounds kind of raw / not ready.

mozilla has written strategy:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/websites/domains/overview/

the rationale and fuller explanation seem sensible -
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Websites/Taskforce/Proposals/Domain_Name_Strategy

i get the sense part of the issue is capitalizing on firefox's brand recognition / popularity to give better visbility to mozillas full portfolio.... we have a bit of a different context there tho, we have one platform w different flavors. they have comlletely diff produxts and mult end user facing sites....

if fedoraporject.org was a better domain like say fedora.org tbis would be an easier call to make but i think its too tinker-y to use the same.strategy mozilla is

does that make sense?

just a ping - i would love to get started on planning changes but i dont really understand where we're at right now.

Yeah, I am not sure where this is at either.

I don't think a ticket is great for discussing broad highlevel plans. Perhaps we could take some time in a council irc meeting, or even just our weekly infra meeting and discuss this more in a higher BW media?

So ticket #6397 and #5644 came up in the infrastructure meeting today (2018-07-12). We would like to get this discussed at the Dresden Flock (2018-08) and get an answer of which policy we need to follow towards naming of projects in the future. The outcome of this will be dealt with in the meeting of 2018-08-23 and the tickets will be closed shortly afterwords.

@kevin maybe move this to next_meeting for discussion?

Well, we don't need more discussion here I don't think... we just need someone to drive the changes.

Related to https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5644

Should this be moved to an initiative? It's not going to be a small amount of work.

@mattdm what do you think?

We can either move it to an initiative or close it out as not getting worked on.

For the record, I doubt we can merge magazine under one domain as long as it is hosted at wpengine.

We have less control on the service due to hit being hosted, and past attempts at using a proxy triggered their anti DDos protection blocking the website (or rather the proxy), and only their engineers can fix that by adding the IP to a list, list limited to 5 entries (so less than the number of proxies of Fedora infra).

Kevin and I discussed this and we do not think we can do this as a ticket as it will need a lot of outside work and capital. We think this is an initiative and needs to go through the CPE planning process.

That sounds totally reasonable. Thanks.