Discuss mailing list

[Philipp Schafft <lion AT lion.leolix.org>]

Good morning my valued friends,


On Fri, 2015-10-16 at 13:55 -0600, Jeff Taylor wrote:
> [...]
> Keeping this in mind, these are our options:
> 1) allow unlimited entries
> 2) limit the number of entries per person to a fixed number
> 3) limit the number of entries based on a formula, taking into account 
> the current number of public servers, and/or the amount of time a user 
> has successfully provided public servers.
> 
> Number 3 seems to offer the best option, so long-time members can 
> provide larger numbers of servers.  Even within that, there are 
> sub-options to consider:
> 3a) Number is a percentage of total servers -- if there are 70 public 
> servers and we user 10% as our base, then each user would be allowed to 
> list 7 servers.
> 3b) Add the percentage to a base number -- we could allow everyone 5 + 
> 10%, so as above this would currently give everyone a total of 12 
> servers they could provide.
> 3c) Calculate a number from the length of time the user has been hosting 
> public servers -- For a simple example, let's say 1 server per every 
> month of hosting, so someone who has run servers for 10 months would be 
> allowed to list up to 10 servers.
> 
> Most likely we would want to create a combination of the above...

Yes-


> something like a base of 2 servers, plus 5% of total servers for every 3 
> months of hosting.  This would ensure a new user doesn't have too many 
> entries to begin with, but that they become more trusted with long-term 
> involvement with the project.
> 
> Please discuss how this should be handled.  We need to decide how we 
> want to handle this and implement a solid solution that is fair to 
> everyone.  If you have ideas for a formula to use, please explain why 
> you like it.  If there are other variables that should be considered, 
> let me know and I'll see if it's something I can implement.


There several aspects that I would like to add to the discussion. (I'm a
bit short on time today, will maybe add more to the discussion
tomorrow.)

Before we talk about the formulae we should discuss who it applies to.
Is this about natural persons or non-natural persons? What if a
non-natural person is basically a 1-natural entity (at least from
OpenNIC's PoV)? How should that be handled? Also what about Peerings?

Just an example for my person:
I am...
      * my natural person. (Currently not sponsoring servers as I don't
        have any myself.)
      * legal representative (vice president) for Fellig e.V. which
        sponsors one server.
      * legal representative (head of department) of FurNIC which is a
        department of Fellig e.V. which sponsors a hidden master and
        some other infrastructure for *peering*.
      * May be representative (legal, administrative, technical,...) for
        a company (where I work) which may sponsor servers (currently
        not the case).

What should that formulae apply to? All of that? Each individually?

I'm not yet sure about this expect for the two aspects:
Peering should be subject to a peering contract and therefore not
subject to this ruling.
The financial situation (is there any money reserve of any kind?).
Also: The status of being a representative may change depending
organisation. E.g. there could be elections or other means of personal
changes. So that may or may not be a bit fluid.


That brings me to the formulae:
      * Such money or other reserves should be part of it. (Maybe just
        as 'how many servers can you grantee to be funded for at least
        the next six months?')
      * If the current network site is taken into account: What happens
        in case the network is decreasing? Would that mean that servers
        would be forcefully removed from the list? That could
        de-stabilize the network even more. On the other paw if not it
        may result in the same situation again. Maybe there should be an
        time window given here like 'you can keep them for 3 months,
        after that $someone needs to discuss this, after 6 months that
        decision must be implemented in case the situation has not
        changed otherwise.'
      * What happens in case the network is in 'emergency' mode like...
        like 50% of the servers are down overnight? Should this be
        handled differently? May it be covered by the regulation one up?
      * What is the 'critical mass'? Like when one person has nn% of the
        network they can effectively overtake/destroy/harm by sending
        everyone photos of funny looking trees/.... The formulae should
        take this critical mass as absolute maximum. I suspect that
        somewhere between 25% and 50%, maybe a bit lower. But this is
        something that should be discussed!

Have a nice Saturday morning!

-- 
Philipp.
 (Rah of PH2)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part