Discuss mailing list

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

B)

Am 2. November 2015 17:16:54 MEZ, schrieb Jeff Taylor <shdwdrgn AT sourpuss.net>:
>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