Discuss mailing list

[Rouben <rouben AT rouben.net>]

1: NO

2/3 = 0.66666... (ad infinitum) to pass + minimum of 5 people to pass... means at least 4 our of 5 to pass? 3/5=0.6 which is less than 2/3.

The numbers here are a bit too tight... why not raise the minimum number of voters to 7? This needs more thinking. :)

I like minimums, but do not necessarily agree with 2/3 majority. Given the size of this community, I think this may be overkill.

I also echo the concern re: the validity of votes. How do we know who's a legitimate OpenNIC member? Should just anyone subscribed to this list be allowed to vote on issue like server operations/specs?

I'd love to see the concept of renewable membership, even something as simple as having to confirm your ML subscription every 6 to 12 months or so. Ideally being an OpenNIC member, as opposed to "power user" or "curious bystander" should be vetted beyond the ability to subscribe to a mailing list.

2: YES

3: YES

4: YES

5: YES

6: NO

This needs more work. As others mentioned, some peered network will be unable to reciprocate with a T1 server... maybe a catch-all clause that says "exceptions to the above will be considered on a case-by-case basis considering the unique nature of some namespaces (e.g. crypto)."

Also this really bugs me:

"- SHOULD NOT be held accountable to OpenNIC organizational policies."

maybe not all of them, but they shouldn't be just letting anyone do anything. Each peered network should have a hostmaster/abuse process.

Rouben

On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Jonah Aragon <jonah AT triplebit.net> 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