Discuss mailing list

[Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62281 AT gmail.com>]

I still support B; although a compromise involving both sorting the list 
and some very high limit (~60%?) might be helpful.

Another option is a soft limit--allow any number of servers to entered 
in the list but hide servers that would exceed the limit for an operator.

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.