Discuss mailing list

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

That will not lead to anything, as you can also choose these two server for 
you, which will also cause the loss of DNS servers reachabillity if this 
operator is leaving.


-- 

Hunter 9999

Am 18. Oktober 2015 08:13:10 MESZ, schrieb 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
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>--------
>You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
>You may unsubscribe by emailing
>discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org