[HCoop-Discuss] Clinton's proposed colo quote request

[Davor Ocelic]

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:53:09 -0400
Richard Darst <rkd at hcoop.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 07:04:31AM -0400, Adam Chlipala wrote:
> > I'd like to comment on the material found here:
> >     http://wiki.hcoop.net/ProspectiveHostsQuoteRequest2009
> > 
> > I prefer Clinton's "alternate draft" to the original.  The meat of
> > it seems good to me, though I think the first paragraph includes
> > too much irrelevant information.  The colo provider doesn't care
> > that we're a non-profit corporation or that we've become
> > dissatisfied with another provider.  I think these messages should
> > focus on making clear what it 
> 
> When I was looking through the old quotes, at least one response from
> a provider stated that they were offering us a special offer due to
> our nonprofit status.

Mentioning non-profit status is acceptable, when done briefly,
which is not the case with current draft(s).

I prefer Clinton's draft, simply because the first (and most important)
paragraph is more formal and more concise. But whichever draft we take,
IMO, they both need a rewrite of that first paragraph, which I'd 
probably volunteer to do if it's not done already and doesn't get
done by the time I manage to look into it.

I don't remember exactly, but I think that the previous quote requests
we've been sending out (the ones I told you about) had those basic
elements right; there's no reason we shouldn't look up to them.

-doc

> > Do we want to mention the desirability of KVM services?  With that
> > and other pieces of infrastructure (network switch, etc.) provided
> > by the colo company, I really think we could do just fine with only
> > about 4U of space, as long as we only use beefy servers.
> 
> Sure, we should see how much they can provide.  But if the price is
> really low enough, 4U means we would not have that much room to
> expand.
> 
> - Richard
>