Discuss mailing list

[Christopher <weblionx AT gmail.com>]

Also as a note even if we go with option (A) and someone reaches the
limit, they can still run more T2 servers and give out those IP
addresses to other folks, they just won't be officially listed as an
OpenNIC T2 on the website. Have we been hurting for servers to support
the load of OpenNIC users?

I feel like A and B are effectively the same thing from a network
stability PoV. Maybe a limit would help focus people on providing
better servers, not just more? Or maybe if people are limited, they'll
try to get others to join in, thereby raising the limit? Maybe that'd
be effective to help get new server operators in. Can I change my vote
to A?


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62281 AT gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org
>