Discuss mailing list

[Christopher <weblionx AT gmail.com>]

Regarding the person vs. organization, I think having them separate
would be fine. Any servers you control personally that are not
dependent on the organization count towards your limit.

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Philipp Schafft <lion AT lion.leolix.org> wrote:
> 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)