Discuss mailing list

[Christopher <weblionx AT gmail.com>]

Another idea: Just hide the excess servers. Basically by default only
show the first two or so servers from any individual. If someone
really wants the remaining servers they just click a link, agree to a
notice "If a single person leaves all these servers go down" or what
have you, then they get the list of extra servers.

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net> wrote:
> Sorry I didn't touch on these subjects in my original email.  I was also
> pressed for time, and didn't want to throw out too much at one time...
>
> Two things I want to specifically comment on, because it has already been
> discussed on IRC as well.  First, the subject of what happens when the
> number of available servers drop.  I believe, along with others, that no
> servers should *ever* be removed from the pool due to such circumstances.
> If your servers were allowed due to the established formula, you would not
> have them removed just because the formula now dictates you should have a
> lower number of servers. It *would* mean that you could not add any new
> servers again until the overall numbers came back up to a point where the
> formula allowed it.  Does that make sense?
>
> The second item is that of personal versus sponsored servers.  An idea that
> was suggested would be that one of the tier0 admins (Julian, Brianko,
> Purrdeta, and/or myself) could receive a letter of intent for sponsorship of
> a server, and we could consider that as confirmation that a third party also
> has a vested interest in keeping the server running.  Regardless of how
> proof is obtained, sponsored servers would have to figure differently into
> the formula, or perhaps not have any weight at all towards the calculation
> for personal server limitations.  My own feeling towards this would be a
> requirement that the person collecting sponsors to have shown some set time
> with the opennic project, showing their own good faith in sticking around.
> Once that condition has been met, then I see no reason to place any
> limitation on sponsored servers.  The only caveat I can see as a potential
> consideration might be that the tier0 admins also be provided with access to
> the sponsored servers, or something similar to provide a buffer for
> worst-case scenarios -- basically with the intent being that if the person
> who got the sponsorship were to suddenly leave opennic, or in the
> unfortunate event that something were to happen to them, the sponsors would
> have assurances that their server would continue to function and their
> investment would not be lost.
>
> Just to clarify, some of this is from discussions on IRC, but most of it is
> just my own musings.  Basically what it boils down to is: we shouldn't limit
> sponsored servers, but it would be nice to have a way to give assurances to
> the sponsors.
>
>
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>