Discuss mailing list

[Martin Albus <info AT rdns.cc>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

B)

On 11/02/2015 05:16 PM, Jeff Taylor wrote:
> Would anyone else care to comment on this?  The topic has been dead
> for the past two weeks but we never really reached a solution.  I
> just re-read the thread, and it seems like the responses are pretty
> evenly divided between:
> 
> A) Set limitations per person, but do not count sponsored servers
> in those limits
> 
> B) Do not enforce any limitations, allow members to add as many
> servers as they have, but code the nearest-server page to spread
> the suggested IP's across multiple admins.
> 
> One caveat we've run in to while asking sponsors to send an email
> to opennic administration -- none of the sponsors seem to be
> willing or have the time to write an email.  While it still seems
> prudent to try and impose *some* restrictions, the reality seems to
> be that nobody is willing to even try and work with us on the
> matter.
> 
> In addition to unresponsive sponsors, we've had admins deleting all
> of their servers in protest of having any limitations at all (in
> case anyone has wondered why the number of available servers has
> fluctuated a lot lately), and on IRC an almost daily stream of
> "shdwdrgn is solely responsible for preventing me from adding more
> servers to the list". Fine, whatever, fortunately it's not up to me
> to make policy for opennic, I just step in to do damage control
> when needed.
> 
> So folks, let's hear it.  Do you want to see option A) or B) 
> implemented?  Just give me an email vote of which way opennic
> should handle this issue, and we can move forward from there.
> 
> 
> On 10/21/2015 04:07 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>> Jeff Taylor wrote:
>>> ok folks, so what do we want to do here?  Shall we implement a 
>>> calculation to limit the number of servers an individual can
>>> add to the pool, or shall we leave the list wide-open like it
>>> was before, and use the suggestions for the nearest-server IPs
>>> to limit the fallout if a user removes all their servers?  We
>>> need to decide how we're going to handle this.
>> For what it's worth, I favor sorting the list rather than
>> limiting it.  Maybe we should also have a message explaining that
>> server operators are volunteers and can choose to leave so having
>> servers with different operators is a good idea?
>> 
>> I would even suggest that the "best servers for you" list should
>> never have more than one server from any one operator in the top
>> 3.  Pick servers from adjacent regions if needed, but always have
>> the top 3 be from three different operators.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -------- 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
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWN8c8AAoJEJtqPszvPSImwP8P/3Wmo0HKLLcjR5V/LCJLKhQD
i6awYUpqsvqDf/2M7Kf3DcEH25vPBdEOII+JZMWfhwAFcR3mItcHwCm/L2z8WvD5
/oJHtp4ldZen0Wp2mquP96QbYm1NosaW19Y7dLX3m3nFT0JYXhCIIJxLzEnqVWfe
wdP09nAVbej26FlD+NHF/fkUnG5PWxfjNjB2s4iGpfuqT1ksPFvW8nYojbZTGKJa
b43eftultQCYEGWs5v7wUfnMudt/KlV/VhHiin01YBYLcDA8xAeB2aLN2sdYxvLJ
qa9kK6Mqb5UCwodzaI752V960XjjJLesSLYjoTEB6MP+Tb+Pgb+YH9vOK+uDk2Lh
/GVnSa522d7j8ZM9Q+A02m9dcHsg69fZ+TLczp8OCs5PmWXur35S8vhjpwsZpYpq
2GFT3oB0qBT6XfRVoR+WdSNrHebWQEG71vyewbBMNtDD/NhyLNh5swX6h9BXANXq
UAhCamE/QbACQsYTmtaw0ZMoVxbJxKCq+LWI8AJ8B1vefFugnOzIv9YcmVazoV+P
Wd6BgOhipbnaSuRtNGVA6weLOz5I9X2ag3WTM5QlNzrf/hA/L5RLT2kji9SpQAFn
d9Zn65zbNAlAD/FZ/4Y1KoZjbxpW31C9mjOeTrEjCuOBPSyD0llJN6sov1HJrA3W
xN3sewSQEgNCy1ol4gck
=W9Og
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----