Not sure I'd use the term bottleneck as it implies restriction, unles that's what you're meaning? But what I think you are saying is watch for single point dependency - am I right? Just checking so I clarify understanding of your thoughts.
So I was coming from the angle after I read your message that said "I havent done this, because I'm doing that". You've said that a couple of times now.
Doing "this" could be something fun that you want to do, but you cant
get to it, because of all the "that" things that you need to do.
Running a network has a lot of "that" things, and in FSX they all dependon you.
Joining games, getting connected, debugging (the infrastructure)
I know one of the "this" you wanted to do is build these servers you picked up a while ago - so I'm guessing that has been/was pre-empted by "that" things related to FSX and "that" things related to Avons personal life outside of BBSing.
Thus the downside is, folks are waiting on you, the chores build up and
it wears away at the fun.
So if there were 2 or 3 or 4 "Avons", then things might get done quicker (thus the end user experience benefits), and you get more time for
And when it gets to the size of FN (I always think big) - then you can look back and say - I started "this".
At the heart of this discussion are a few things/points/questions you are raising. Here's my take on what those are.
- what things are being done now that are (for want of a better term) network related admin that could be done not just by me but by
Is there anything that can't be done by others?
Then you are the first contact for new nodes. It seems that you are spending quite some time in helping people to setup their BBS / FTN connectivity.
- is this happening now in any shape/form?
I don't believe so, but I'm not sure.
The most important task is updating and distributing the nodelist.
I don't see any reason why the nodelist cannot be updated
collaboratively. E.g. use a private SVN / Git / Mercurial / Fossil repository and give every network write access.
- what does an acceptable level of service look like for all this stuff?
Level 8 would be nice ;)
- are we trying to fix something that is viewed as not broken, or is it broken? (I may be a bit harsh in my terminology using broken but you get the idea)
At the moment it is bus factor 1-ish, but as long as Avon is not broken and keeps updating the nodelist, I wouldn't call it broken. It depends
on the criteria you have. If the criteria were scalability and fault-tolerance, you could call the current process broken. On the other hand, even if Avon would shutdown all his nodes without any warning, the network would not cease to exist.
@Alterego: I'm not sure if fsxnet should be seen as the successor to Fidonet. Maybe it would also make sense to start a new Fidonet in a
truly decentralized and collaborative fashion?
I'm more than happy for fsxNet to take the lead in experimenting with approaches to decentralization and collaboration. It's really an area
of interest to me and others. I also am keen on how we can better
implement encrypted mesh networking ideas into this discussion. But
to do so we need agreement on what that means by all involved. I
think I may have already said that :)
Could we create a dedicated echomail area for this (and all the things that were mentioned in the thread)? FSX_NETWORK, FSX_OPS, FSX_META or FSX_FTN, ...?
I find it hard to follow the discussions in FSX_GEN and I really would prefer a low-traffic area. It also would work much better as an archive.
|Nodes:||4 (0 / 4)|