Discuss mailing list

[Hunter 9999 <mail AT hunter-9999.de>]

Am 18. Oktober 2015 07:34:22 MESZ, schrieb Jeff Taylor 
<shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>:
>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.

Wouldn't that require, that the contract with the hoster is not done by the 
person who is getting the money, which is causing the money never going to 
the one who is paying the server?


-- 

Hunter 9999

Am 18. Oktober 2015 07:34:22 MESZ, schrieb Jeff Taylor 
<shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>:
>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