Discuss mailing list

[Jonah Aragon <jonah AT triplebit.net>]

I’ve long been in favor of a system where server operators (T1, T2, and infrastructure ops like the website and mailing list operators) would be the decision makers, but I’m not sure if that’s a popular opinion by any means and I didn’t think it was something I wanted to address here because of that. Any limits like the ones you’d propose—which I personally would agree with—would undoubtedly be met with lots of disagreement. 

I would wholeheartedly agree that the voters should be people with an actual stake in the future of our organization, but people don’t like to give up power and I have my doubts it would pass a vote here first. 

I don’t think a fee should be encouraged at present however, simply because our current means of donation (the PayPal and Bitcoin addresses on the homepage) are operated by who-knows-who and are completely non-transparent. I’ve always hated our donation system because it is a truly non-community oriented means of making money. I have literally no idea who operates those accounts, where the funds go to, or if anyone gets a say in how they’re spent. If our donation system actually benefited the organization though I’d change my mind on the matter. 

As a reminder, this is an active vote. If you want to seriously talk about a membership system it’d probably be beneficial to start a new thread.

Jonah

On Nov 8, 2017, at 15:11, Amunak <amunak AT amunak.net> wrote:

About the rules, I agree with you and really like your initiative, but I feel like unless we have a more automated way to vote the rules will still be broken. It's not so easy to follow and remember them all all the time and some of them require that people cooperate which could be hard.

As for registered membership that would be a great topic to solve rather soon I think. It will be hard, it'll bring the topic of gatekeeping, but I feel like if OpenNIC wants to be taken seriously and have some "proper" membership we should require more than sending an email. For one, membership probably shouldn't be anonymous, and I also think that members (as in, people with voting power) should maybe be required to somehow actively support the project - non-profits usually do this by requiring a membership fee, we could substitute or supply it with maybe either a fee or running a T2 server or something. But that opens another huge can of worms in and of itself. So yeah... Just something to think about.

Amunak

On 08.11.2017 21:53, Jonah Aragon wrote:

I do agree that we need a definition for membership, but that’s not something I’m addressing here and clearly a separate discussion is to be had on the matter. I’m not sure how that would influence the current vote. 

It’s an odd phenomenon I’ve noticed here, everyone seems to think that we’re some small community that needs no official rules because we know what we’re doing, while it’s been proven time and time again that we aren’t, and clearly rules need to be established. 

Jonah

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