[Labs-l] Reimplementing account expiries

Fri Feb 3 16:30:25 UTC 2017

I agree with Anomie, we should not switch to hard and fast rules for
everyone, but instead should focus on specific accounts that are consuming
disproportionate amounts of resources, if any such accounts exist.

As for "marking yourself active", I don't like the proposed idea either.
Why should I have to run "confirmaccount", if I just logged into my account
over SSH? Didn't the act of logging in indicate my account is active?

Are we keeping tracking of "last login" info for each user? Should we
modify the "become" script so it logs whenever someone uses it, so we know
which tools are actively being logged into by their developers? There are
so many other "passive" ways of determining which account/tool is actively
maintained than asking the user to confirm it.

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) <bjorsch at wikimedia.org
> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Maximilian Doerr <
> maximilian.doerr at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey guys, I thought I would throw a quick suggestion in to the mix.  We
>> frequently encounter situations where labs hits resource limits because of
>> tools consuming space, either by negligence, or the owner disappeared.
>>
>
> {{citation needed}}, particularly in that this is a problem on Tool Labs
> specifically.
>
> The only thing along these lines that comes to my mind is the recent
> cleanup of old unused Labs instances, which was nothing to do with Tool
> Labs.
>
> Ok, and there was concern a while back about *log files* consuming space
> on Tool Labs. But that has little to do with inactive users.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Labs-l mailing list
> Labs-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/labs-l/attachments/20170203/14520cc2/attachment.html>