[volunteergrid2-l] Should we increase the node minimum capacity?

[Shawn Willden]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Iantcho Vassilev <ianchov at gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to put my 2cents also.

Great!

> I am on for expanding the grid.
> The voting system looks promising and i think this is the best way a
> community can decide.
> For me 2/3 or 3/4 of the vote suffice and if a majority has voted then the
> 1/3 or 1/4 part has to agree with the new rules.

This is my thought as well.  I'm leaning towards 3/4, because while I
want to be sure that one recalcitrant individual can't block progress,
I'd also like to stay as close to a consensus approach as possible.

> Also the transit period is a good option - 6 months is a lot of time so i
> think for this current problem it is ok.

Okay.

> I also think that the people with 2 and more nodes should not have full
> election rights for the node count.

I find this very interesting... it seems more fair to me that people
providing multiple nodes should have multiple votes, since they are
contributing more to the grid.  But so far no one who is operating
multiple nodes and would benefit from this seems to agree with me :-)

If everyone wants to stick with one vote per person, I'm okay with
that.  In fact it makes the voting much easier.

>  Last and not least i vote for accounting system  and access control.

I agree with this, too, but we have to wait for Tahoe-LAFS to gain
these capabilities before we can apply them.

> We should have detailed statistics on operators shares, access time, load
> etc

I have been meaning to figure out the changes necessary to instrument
my node to monitor uptimes.  Partly this is because I think having
actual numbers will help motivate people to keep their nodes up, and
partly it's because I want to set up automatic notifications when
nodes go down.  It's not unusual for nodes to go down without the
operator realizing it, and as we grow the grid individual outages will
become more and more common.

> and also we should control our introducer with more than simple hidden
> url.

It's a little more than that now.  Well, it's just a hidden URL, but
it's a hidden, *unguessable* URL.

Yes, I agree that eventually it would be better to have more control
-- when Tahoe-LAFS provides us with the tools.

-- 
Shawn