Discuss mailing list

[vv AT cgs.pw]

Looks like there's already a majority, but I'll vote anyway:

  B)

~ vv


> 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
>