Discuss mailing list

[Bart Smienk <b AT rtsmienk.nl>]

Hi Jonah,

I agree that some requirements are indeed useful and some are already part of the current requirements. Only I think the rules should be slightly more relaxed.
For example:
>You MUST have operated a Tier 2 DNS server continuously for at least 3 months, and said DNS server MUST be in operation while your TLD is being considered.

I think setting this to something like 2 weeks would be more welcoming to new members. 2 weeks should be enough to proof you're able to maintain a reasonably stable server. I don't feel like (other then making people wait) there are upsides to letting them wait 3 months.

Honestly if we can lower this wait time I'm willing to change my vote to yes, as with the other rules I can live. What is your and everyone else their opinion about this?

Kind regards,
Bart

On 5-11-2017 01:40, Jonah Aragon wrote:

Thanks for your reply, valuable insight. 

2. NO
--> At the moment I feel like the requirements are too large. Although I agree with stronger requirements I feel like some of these are a bit too much for the small community we have here.

All I want to point out is that with Section 2, I’m addressing the exact issue that you mentioned in your vote on section 5:

Everyone wants a stable network and having everyone on the same minimum requirements can help us reach that goal

Operating a TLD is such an integral role to the network that these requirements are in place primarily to ensure that people are dedicated. In actuality these requirements are not big at all and are readily met by all our current TLDs. If a new operator isn’t willing to bring their TLDs up to the specifications section 2 provides, then how can we guarantee they’re committed to the project at all? If you don’t wish to put the work in that’s required, we’d rather push people towards operating Tier 2 servers I’d think. 

I’d also just like to mention that 95% of Section 2 is already a requirement or a community expectation mentioned on the Wiki in one place or another. I’m only consolidating and making our current expectations official, but it was a very derivative work. 

All the best,

Jonah

On Nov 4, 2017, at 17:47, Bart Smienk <b AT rtsmienk.nl> wrote:

Hi,

My votes are as following:
1. NO
--> This system can be easily abused due the way a mailing list works. If we are going to implement something like this we would need to verify the users voting have been active in the OpenNIC community to prevent someone from just having a bunch of sockpuppets to influence the vote. I would much rather just keep it on a case to case basis.

2. NO
--> At the moment I feel like the requirements are too large. Although I agree with stronger requirements I feel like some of these are a bit too much for the small community we have here.

3. YES
--> Not only would this make sorting the emails through my filter system easier but it would make it more clearer for everyone. No bad sides on this one

4. YES
--> Voting without having had a clear discussion on the subject does sound very chaotic

5. YES
--> Everyone wants a stable network and having everyone on the same minimum requirements can help us reach that goal

6. BLANK
--> I feel like I don't know enough about this subject to have a clear opinion about it.

Kind regards,
Bart
~Smiba

On 3-11-2017 01:53, Jonah Aragon wrote:

Hello! 

This vote is on the changes proposed at https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2017-10/msg00135.html. The vote on adding these changes to the official OpenNIC policies will end on November 14, 2017 at 6:00 PM UTC. 

IMPORTANT, READ BEFORE VOTING: This vote is split up into 6 sections, which may be passed individually (they do not depend on each other). You should vote YES or NO on every section individually in an ordered list 1 through 6. This is an effort to get the portions the community most wants passed while keeping open the possibility of dropping certain topics that may require more discussion. If your reply contains only a single YES or NO, your vote will be counted as either YES or NO for all 6 sections proposed, respectively. Each of the six sections are labeled as such in the original proposal. 

Here’s a brief summary of the proposal, for your convenience. You should read the full proposal linked above prior to voting. 

- Very clear voting outcome requirements. Certain votes may now require more than the simple majority of votes that were required for any proposals in the past. 

- Clarified TLD proposal requirements. This should ensure an operator’s setup is configured prior to a proposal, and outline what exactly is necessary for any operator. 

- Voting and formal discussion threads posted to this list now have a very clear format that MUST be followed. This will prevent confusion on what the original poster is expecting from the community. 

- Formal discussions now have a strict minimum time requirement to be active before a vote can be pushed to the list. Voting threads now have very clear deadlines. 

- DNS operators now have certain minimum requirements to meet to keep the ability to operate key infrastructure components. 

- FUTURE peered networks now have requirements to meet before we enter an agreement with them. 

Jonah

--------
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

--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature