Message 1 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 4 02:06:50 1993 PST From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: I like it I like this, because it is all carrot and no stick. The only problem I can see is being a good little player for a few months then using those quota points for spammy objects, but I don't see this as much of a problem, as one would have to be good for an awful long time for such an action to be significant. -Xi -------------------------- Message 2 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 4 09:45:35 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: Kudos where they belong This was Quinn's idea. He's got a petition pending, so I took the idea and turned it into a petition. Of course, I'm also exercising artistic license in choosing the wording, etc., so some of it's mine, but the *basic* idea is not. I had some horribly stick-y idea involving recycling your largest object. You don't want to hear about it :-) -------------------------- Message 3 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 4 10:11:21 1993 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: Some missing pieces I agree with the idea of quota incentives, but I don't think this one is presently solid. Some problems I see ... - It doesn't address people who have free quota. Will newbie programmers who haven't made any objects get one new quota point per month because they have no over quota objects? If not, then will they be encouraged to make a zillion small objects just so they'll be in the running for looking like good citizens? - It does not combine well with other proposals I can imagine coming along later (such as free quota transfer) because it permits someone with no interest in building things to become a "quota generator" and to sell the interest off of their non-objects in exchange for some other consideration, creating net new quota for people who don't qualify. Since I want to see "free quota transfer" be something that is experimented with later, I don't want to create an unchecked automatic source of new quota. - Most importantly, it does not retract quota from people who are chronically over quota. I think the idea of giving out free quota by some automatic mechanism suggests that there is an infinite supply. I don't agree. I think the incentive should be structured to produce an overall net reduction in db size by saying that if you make 10 small objects, you should be entitled to the same space (perhaps 11 small objects) as someone who has 10 regular size objects. If you then permit those objects to grow with no penalty, then a person just have 11 regular size objects and a net negative impact on the db. The correct thing would be to retract the free quota point if it appeared that "circumstances had changed", but I think that will lead to some bad consequences, too. Hence, I'm suspicious of the whole idea. By the way, I sent mail to *soc recently about an alternate theory I had that would address some quota issues. People interested in that might want to "@peek 1665 on *soc". It's not the same technique as is proposed here, but it is based around the idea of incentives. yduJ has pointed out some concerns related to @recreate and how it might interact with this, but I think overall those wholes are smaller and more easily plugged than the holes in this one. --M -------------------------- Message 4 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 4 12:32:57 1993 PST From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: mickey's plan Mickey's plan: I think people should get a quota point back for every generic they have which has two kids. Generics are good. They save space. Yet I find myself not wanting to make them because it costs me only two quota points to have two objects will fully copied verbs, but it would cost me three quota points to have a generic with the verbs in one place and two kids of that generic. Something is wrong with this and we need to fix it. Flaws in Mickey's plan: 1. Cheating pal types: @chparent dummy to pal's-generic pal types: @chparent dummy to pal's-generic ...ad nauseum 2. Its "Bonuses" are already in the ARB's realm. If you're making good generics used by the public, you're going to receive quota from the ARB when you apply. This is already done, many times at a much greater than 2-for-one ratio. And there are quality checks instead of an auto-prize. Point 1 is assuming you mean "2 kids owned by someone other than the parent owner and eir shared characters". Otherwise, it's just plain silly and an easy cheat. If you want 6 pets for 3 quota, just @chparent to the generic pet and @create off that. (children(obj) || obj.f) do not a generic make. -------------------------- Message 5 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 4 12:55:49 1993 PST From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: alternate implementation When your time comes due for the free-quota, you're added to a board in the Star Chamber. If one ARB member scans and approves the free-quota, e types a command and it is given, with mail from Santa Claus. Perhaps the same for denial-- one NO vote and its done. But no mail. Hell, if reminded upon confunc (as we are wrt outstanding quota requests), I'd be glad to `@go #1000' and scan through the list with a `@owned dude with prospectus' for each. No red-tape, and a relatively painless process for the ARB. The board could list (for convenience's sake) avg size of the subjects's objects. Actually, we could use Bb's improvements to the tally board to see that at a glance. Anyway, this seems to be a more airtight solution to the problem. Semi- automated, but with some good ol' human common sense thrown in. -quinn -------------------------- Message 6 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 4 13:50:58 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Quinn (#19845) and *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: Re: alternate implementation Is this an alternate implementation of Mickey's idea, or your original idea? --yduJ -------------------------- Message 7 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 4 14:18:22 1993 PST From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: altimp oops. Yah it's an alternate implementation of the petition, a once-a-month review of unidle players. Actually, it's just a system of automatic ARB-granted 'welfare' quota. The terms of the handouts aren't rigid. -------------------------- Message 8 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 4 15:56:05 1993 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: size-based quota First, I think as far as petitions are concerned, I'd rather set up that 'the ARB is in charge of all quota policy', so that this issue isn't a petition at all, but rather, a motion to the ARB. However, here's my idea anyway: First, give every player a 'size quota' which is the total amount of space they're supposed to use. The size quota is initially set to be based on the amount of quota they have. This would be done with something like: @prop $player.size_quota 0 ; for x in (players()) x.size_quota = (x.ownership_quota + length(x.owned_objects)) * 20000; endfor Secondly, run some background process that computes, weekly, for each player, if the total object bytes of all of their objects exceeds their size quota, if so, decrease their actual quota. If not, increase their actual quota until it is at least 5. Players who use their quota for lots of little objects (useful exits, etc) will get more. Those who let their mail back up, and grow bloated will get less. We should set it up so that the total of the size quota for all players doesn't exceed 200 megabytes. I'd guess that would mean that the ARB could only give away quota as characters were reaped, or if some kind of size-quota was taken away from others (inactive players who haven't been reaped?) As the MOO database is now 98 MB, don't we need some mechanism for really approaching space reasonably? -------------------------- Message 9 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 4 16:07:57 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Gru (#122) and *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: Re: size-based quota Woo, Grump, brilliant. This is similar to my previously alluded-to idea with a stick, but it's stick is better, and it has a carrot as well. (I apologize to CaRrOt for all this taking of his name in vain.) Hm, maybe I'll just CHANGE THE PETITION COMPLETELY to do this instead of Quinn's idea. (Quinny-poo, will you pout at me if I do this?) --yduJ -------------------------- Message 10 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 4 17:08:21 1993 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: Re: size-based quota Gru[mp], I do not like the idea of a size quota that does not take into account the purpose of the object. Some people have big quotas because they own a restaurant and need a lot of dishes, all of which will be children of somegeneric that has most of the stuff, and will need hardly any per-object space. Others will have a lot of distinct objects that are very complex in and of themselves. I think it is unfair to have some program that is based purely on a formula of number and size of individual objects and does not take into account their actual kind and purpose. If we double the number of drinking glasses for Club Dred, I don't think that should pull down Dred's perceived quota average. I think we all really know that Dred doesn't have those objects for himself, and we need a quota system that takes subjective intended purpose into account. (Btw, I'm just making up the part about Dred's usage and didn't check to see if it's really like that, but I'm sure there are equivalent examples if not that, so please don't waste any messages correcting my attempt to make this discussion sound concrete.) --M -------------------------- Message 11 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 4 23:33:04 1993 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: size-based quota Mickey, I didn't make clear, but the ARB would be able to give people more 'size'. That is, if you make a popular restuarant, the ARB will give you more size, which will result in your getting more quota. Dred, creator of a popular club, would get enough 'size' to keep it running happily. The idea is just to move the control from 'quota objects' (which doesn't reflect resource utilization) into 'object bytes' (which does) but in a way that we wouldn't need to tweak the server to keep track of object sizes. -------------------------- Message 12 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Fri Nov 5 00:09:53 1993 PST From: Xiombarg (#37636) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: size This size thing is subtly inherent in the current "carrot" concept. I don't like the idea of a stick at _all_. -Xi -------------------------- Message 13 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Fri Nov 5 04:01:06 1993 PST From: Networker (#50261) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: You mess with the man, you gonna suffer! Mmm ($generic_post_header), am I right in understanding that Gru's suggestion would result in the gradual removal of quota from people who were persistantly (consistantly, lemon-flavourdly, etc.) overreaching their average object size. [Is that right? 20000 is a cool size for an object?] How are you going to implement quota removal?: telnet $LambdaMOO connect Networker foo Connected to 13.2.116.36. Escape character is '^]'. *************************** * Welcome to LambdaMOO! * *************************** Running Version 1.7.5 of LambdaMOO Type `connect ' to connect to your character, `connect Guest' to connect to a guest character, `create' to see how to get a character of your own, `@who' just to see who's logged in right now, or `@quit' to disconnect, either now or later. For example, `connect Munchkin frebblebit' would connect to the character `Munchkin' if `frebblebit' were the right password. After you've connected, type `help' for documentation. Please email bug/crash reports (but NOT character-creation requests) to lambda@parc.xerox.com. *** Connected *** Between Worlds A huge executive office. There is a desk sitting in the middle of the room. On top of the desk is a terminal, with messages flashing by every few seconds. A door in the western wall leads to the foyer. There is a glass bell jar sitting on a bookcase. ** You are currently titled: Networker [Networker] ** ** Please do ;me.using_right_now= "Yourname" ** You see a small metallic badge. On closer inspection its surface seems to be made up of millions of tiny points of light. The badge currently displays output from the lag-meter (#35368) by plotting the lag, in seconds, vertically for every sample that the lag-meter takes. A new sample is taken every 10 seconds. The average lag is about 0.6 seconds. 10 +----------------------------------------------------o-----+ 9 | o | 8 | | 7 | | 6 | | 5 | | 4 | o o | 3 | o o | 2 | o | 1 | oo o o o| 0 ooooooooooo--oooo--ooooooo-ooo-ooo-oooooo-oooooooo-oo-o-oo-o old new There is new activity on the following lists: *Core-DB-Issues (#8175) 2 new messages *Technology-Today (#7667) 2 new messages Last connected Thu Nov 4 14:42:07 1993 PST from eat-this.cm.cf.ac.uk *** * Message from Quota-Cops: You were disconnected for more than two weeks and * could not be consulted in that time. We have offlined and recycled your * largest object, The Network (#23140). A recent @dump of this object can be * found at parcftp.xerox.com:/pub/moo/offline/Networker/#23140, the file has * been encrypted with your current MOO password. Please contact Quota-Cops * if you have any problems. * * This has been a public service announcement, thank you. *** You sense that yduJ is out to give you a hard time. ehS pages, "HAHAHAHA, we nailed your ass good and proper that time, didn't we sucker!" --- Anyway, how are you gonna do it? Net. (Once a rug-rat, ALWAYS a rug-rat, that's what I say!) -------------------------- Message 14 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Fri Nov 5 13:13:27 1993 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: reducing quota <0 doesn't recycle objects It might be, if we implemented size quota, that some players would wind up with negative quota. If a player has negative quota, it doesn't actually recycle anything, it just means that they have to recycle MORE (or reduce their space usage more) when they want to build. -------------------------- Message 15 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Fri Nov 5 13:18:19 1993 PST From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: argh I hadn't thought of wht Networker brought up. I'm very much against this if it is going to reduce my quota because I've written a lot of verbs! Many of my objects are of greater size because I've customized them. I shouldn't be penalized for that. -------------------------- Message 16 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Fri Nov 5 13:20:11 1993 PST From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: hmm Exempting people who have already been granted quota by the ARB from this process might remove my fears. I don't want the benefits of the plan, either. If I want quota, I apply for it. And because I do good work, I usually get it without a problem. Same with other competent builders. -------------------------- Message 17 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Fri Nov 5 23:44:11 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: Changes I've written the petition to be Grump's idea (@peek 8 on *p:q-i). I chose the number 50,000 because it was "nice". I then ran some statistics assuming that number. Of those 3789 players who have never gotten a quota increase, 450 are over 50,000. The total "savings", if all those people were to @rmmail and @recycle to bring themselves under would be 22mb. Note that they will not be forced to save space by this petition. They will simply not be permitted to build additional objects, or will have to apply to the ARB for additional quota to bring themselves into positive cash flow. Retroactive quota, so to speak. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 18 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 6 15:18:29 1993 PST From: Miles (#50636) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) First of all, I'm glad someone is making the attempt to use size (as measured in bytes) to limit building, instead of just quota. It is long overdue. I will vote for this proposal, regardless of its details, just because I agree with its basic principle. However, I do question some of the implementation details ... 50,000 bytes seems rather closely judged. I own 22 items (one is simply an object number) and take up about 65,000 bytes. I have no saved mail at all or copied verbs from player classes or feature objects. I would be hard pressed to get below the limit, if I hadn't already been granted a quota increase. I'm not saying that the 50,000 number is wrong. It might even have made a better programmer out of me, but it is definitely challenging and I'm not sure that even now I could make up the 15,000 byte difference by writing more efficient code. I think I would have to look at slimmer parent objects too, which is perhaps a good thing. Maybe I could find enough savings somewhere to get below the limit in a single evening, maybe not. Offhand, setting the limit at 65,000 bytes seems like a scathingly brilliant solution to me. :) I seriously dislike the idea of some players (those already granted a quota increase) getting extra size because they have alot of mail. Mail shouldn't count at all. I've talked to a couple of such players, suggesting that maybe they should consider axing some of their mail, and the answer was - no! Why should they now benefit from it? Very annoying ... Quota is usually granted in blocks of 20. Initially, a programmer will have 50,000 bytes to play with, but if granted quota, that means an additional 200,000 bytes, so a 4:1 ratio, more or less. Actually, that seems fair to me. Building public items with documentation and so forth is more expensive. It makes me wonder why base starting size at all (for players already granted quota) on present size, since 10,000 per quota point seems generous enough as is. Is the Grand_Master character the problem? If so, then maybe write an 'exceptional case' clause in the petition. I am also confused by how quota is to be reduced. If my objects are 'overweight', then my quota is reduced by 1 for every 10,000 bytes (rounded favorably) that I'm over. What is the purpose for limiting the reduction to 5 per week or for that matter reducing quota that is already negative? Miles (thinking out loud) -------------------------- Message 19 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 6 22:24:38 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Miles (#50636) and *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) To anwer your points in no particular order: 50,000 bytes was picked out of a hat because it's a nice round number. It's also twice the size of the "average" schmoo, so it allows a fair amount of morphs, plus a quantity of rooms, mail, etc. Yes, a lot of people will be "over" this number. (454 by my crude scan that didn't take into account shared or second characters.) People whose usage is larger than that have two options: Delete stuff, or apply to the ARB for more. I recommend to Miles that he take the latter option. I am considering changing the initialization so that players who have already been granted quota increases will get only 10,000 bytes of credit towards mail: any additional bytes taken up by mail will be subtracted from their initial stake. (This would be private mail. Public mailing lists such as *social or even *smut will count in the initial stake.) Note that only 105 players have received quota boosts through the ARB or its predecessor (not counting shared or second characters, but those don't make more than 20 additional). I was surprised. However, these 105 are going to be the most vocal, and a lot of them are LambdaMOO's most productive people, who have written large numbers of well documented items, many of which are pretty big. I didn't want to have to mess with individual cases where an existing "trusted builder" (which is basically what an ARB increase means: that you're going to do something good with it, go have fun) suddenly ended up with negative quota so I decided to make that case not happen. You are confused when you say the ARB will be granting 200,000 bytes because "quota is granted in blocks of 20". The 10,000 per object *only* appears in the initialization phase. I had to do something to give starting stake to existing players, and decided that those with lots of quota were people the ARB felt would do useful things, so I chose to have them get more stake. If I find anyone creating copies of $spell just before implementation, I'm going to be extremely upset and severe with them. I don't actually expect this to be a problem, but thought I should write it into the petition just in case. The whole idea behind the petition is to make object quota sort of meaningless---except that it is needed to execute an @create command, because that's how the server is set up now. The petition specifies that the typical increase granted will be 50,000 bytes. The point of going negative is to make you delete lots of things if you're way over in order to build. I should put a lower limit on it---like you obviously can't delete more than the number of objects you own!!! I don't actually have a reason for making the reductions slowly. I just thought I'd "be nice". But maybe reducing to 0 is the correct response on any overage. Thanks for all your comments! --yduJ -------------------------- Message 20 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 6 23:25:24 1993 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: initial size-quota I think it would be fairer if the initial size-quota was computed just as some constant multiplied by the 'granted-quota' (player.ownership_quota + length(player.owned_objects)). (if 21 objects = 50K bytes, the constant would be 2380, might as well round up to 2500). Yes, some builders might have to come to the ARB for more quota just to keep what they have, but I think that's OK. As for reducing quota to 0 for overage, well, it will go up again once you get rid of your enormous stuff on yourself. -------------------------- Message 21 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sun Nov 7 09:44:39 1993 PST From: Greene (#49795) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) One more time with feeling...how is it that the ARB is going to review folks? If you are over the Golden Number, and you want the ARB to say it's okay, what happens? Specifically. -------------------------- Message 22 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sun Nov 7 13:21:47 1993 PST From: Gustavo (#57967) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: .ownership_quota as a built-in... I think that moving from object-counting to byte-counting is a very good idea. If we're going for it... we might as well change the meaning of $player.ownership_quota, without changing the hardcoding of the server. What I mean is the following: set all players' .ownership_quota's to 0. Whenever a builder/programmer wants to @create, create() or :_create(), s/he'd have to use a verb that would first check how fat the player is... If the player is OK byte-wise, then his/her quota is increased (to 1, I guess), and the create() is performed. Too crazy? Gustavo. -------------------------- Message 23 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sun Nov 7 20:30:55 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:Quota-Incentive (#25812) Subject: Various points Greene: Here's how it will work. Let's say you are using 150,000 bytes, and your new size quota is only 50,000. You'll send a letter to an ARB member, or slip a note under the door of the Star Chamber requesting a total of 100,000 extra quota. Unlike object quota, size quota would be maintained as a total, and your *usage* would be compared to this. I plan to write various hooks on the @quota command which will display not only object quota, but also size quota, latest computation of size usage, and the difference of these two numbers. Assuming that your objects are by and large themely, well programmed, documented, public, etc. (all the usual things the ARB looks for), you'll be granted the 100,000 extra bytes, and all will be happy again. Obviously, you should really ask for more than exactly what you need... Let's assume you actually asked for 150,000 extra and got it, giving you a total of 150,000 in use, and 200,000 allowed. The next time the weekly usage scanner runs, it will give you 5 object quota points for @creating things. Assuming you don't grow in usage, the following week you'll get another 5 objects. I thought about aboloshing object quota points entirely, making it just a binary choice: can you @create things at all or can't you, depending on whether you were over size quota, but decided it would be too easy for an out of control program to @create a million objects---it's nice to have that cap on errors, even if the cap is as large as 50. Grump: I don't want to just give an across the board number for existing people's stuff, because too many of them would have to re-apply to the ARB. I think all of them would, I haven't done the computation. (Uh, actually I think I *personally* wouldn't. Interesting...) But it's so close to eveyone that I think it's sort of insulting. I'm going to edit in the change inspired by Miles about mail. Re reducing to 0 and how it would just go up again---there would be a delay of the raise by however many days it was til the week's computation was done. Perhaps I could implement a "look now! I got smaller!" command. On the other hand, there's Gustavo's idea below... Gustavo: Setting everyone's .ownership_quota to 0 is an interesting idea. It would serve the purpose I have long wished for of essentially making create() into a wiz-only primitive, preventing a hostile programmer from using create() without calling an in-db verb. I will have to cogitate upon the ramifications of this: because byte size computation is expensive, any check of the current usage must be approximate if it is to be fast. That's why I specified that only once a week actual usage would be computed. So just because it permitted you to @create would not necessarily mean that tomorrow you could @create again---some object of yours that grew might have been recomputed in the interim. But that is similar to my scheme of raising and lowering quota: my scheme is just a reflection of the inaccuracy of the computation. With your scheme, the inaccuracy would be less obvious, and some players might become confused. But the @quota command could be made to do something like #4669:summarize, reporting unmeasured objects to explain possible future discrepancies. Thanks all for your comments! --yduJ -------------------------- Message 24 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 8 10:49:23 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Renaming, and another reply Gustavo. I renamed this petition to more accurately reflect its current stance. I left q-i as an alias, the name is quota-restructuring, and q-r is also an alias. Gustavo, I thought of one problem with your system: a hostile programmer can ;recycle() stuff without going through any verbs. Recreate too, for that matter. Maybe I should just set everyone's .ownership_quota to -length(them.owned_objects). $recycler doesn't need positive .ownership_quota to work anyway. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 25 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 8 11:53:20 1993 PST From: Gustavo (#57967) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: .o_q < 0..? I started writing some trash about yduJ's last posting, but then I understood. I only want to remind you that the .owned_objects can get corrupted. A player might have 'lost' objects. So... the :create() that a progger should use would have to: 1- check the player's size. If OK: 2- set the player.ownership_quota to 1, or whatever positive number 3- create(@args), or something like that 4- set the p.o_q to minus the new length of the .owned_objects. I think that it would be less cumbersome, and more secure, to have the o_q as some large negative number. If I own 20 objects, there's no difference between my .o_q being -20 or $minint, or something in between. Gustavo (in high delirium) -------------------------- Message 26 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 8 12:49:12 1993 PST From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) and Gustavo (#57967) Well, there's a problem with .ownership_quota being $minint. Recycle one object and you now have $maxint quota. ($minint-1=$maxint) -quinn (stating the obvious) -------------------------- Message 27 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 8 12:51:48 1993 PST From: Gustavo (#57967) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: huh? Recycle one object, and your quota *increases* by one, right? -------------------------- Message 28 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 8 13:05:34 1993 PST From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) oops you're right goddammit i always trip over that. i think when someone sets your quota to $max|minint you undergo some kind of brain damage. -------------------------- Message 29 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 8 13:30:28 1993 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Just in case there are security holes (e.g., missed cases of :create() or something), I think it's wise not to put it too close to $minint in case someone CREATES an object and that leaves them open to create more... I recommend you set it to $minint + some healthy value, perhaps giving that some fancy name like $minquota. I also think Haakon should be lobbied heavily to put support for this more primitively into the server. This is a great kludge that Gustavo has suggested, but it really suggests that the server is a problem and since LambdaMOO is the prototype MOO, the fact that it can't brook the current quota mechanism suggests that it wouldn' hurt to refine things. I personally think (and perhaps it should be part of a separate lobbying effort), that each of the primitive server verbs should have an associated vector of data that says whether each is, for example, a wizverb and that it should be wiz-settable. If that were so, then this could all be done by making :create(), etc. be wizverbs without the need for further changes to the server. This is not the only social problem that is not trivially solvable due to inability of the wizards to control what are wizverbs and what are not. --M -------------------------- Message 30 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 8 21:10:31 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Rewrite I have rewritten the proposal so that it uses Gustavo's idea to abolish object quota entirely. Comments please! --yduJ -------------------------- Message 31 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 9 01:13:18 1993 PST From: Froxx (#49853) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: setting initial size quota, maximum on total size quota This petition still needs a lot of work, I'm afraid. It's important that there be some way to limit the total amount of size quota that's available to all players. Setting '50K bytes' in the petition doesn't allow the number to be adjusted either up or down based on available MOO resources. I really think it would be better to allow the ARB to change the policy in the future. If you want to set up an *initial* scheme, that's fine, but allow some vote of the ARB (2/3?) to modify the whole thing completely, not just the numbers. The thing about the initial quota allocation is missing some implementation details, like who could decide whether the 'initial phase' had been 'abused'. -------------------------- Message 32 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 9 12:25:17 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Pissing in the petition I made some small changes based on Froxx's comments (last paragraph has "and processes" added to it, abuse detection is made into a wider-open door: remember this is a one-time process). I am now understanding that Froxx wants me to say "There are 150,000,000 bytes available. Current usage is . Unused quota must be less tahn 150,000,000-, and shall be distributed in manner ." Hm. Perhaps a better wordsmith than I could think of a way to write that such that it would actually get passed by the voters? I also made quota public knowledge, based on 42 and 17 on *public-arb. I'd like to hear discussion of this point. -------------------------- Message 33 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 9 12:36:52 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Fixed resources There are two problems that could be addressed: Firstly, object quota is a really stupid measure of database usage. Secondly, LambdaMOO has only fixed resources available to it, and is just about at the limits of those resources. My petition, currently, is only proposing to fix the first problem. Even without addressing the second problem by name, I believe my petition will help out in the short term with that problem, by forcing people to recycle/@rmm/@rmprop old stuff if they want to build new stuff. I recognize that I'm not solving the second problem, and that it will rear its ugly head three nanoseconds after the implementation of my petition. But I think that it's probably controversial enough that I don't want to solve both problems at once. I think it's really important to switch over to a bytes-based system. Let's take it in two stages... --yduJ -------------------------- Message 34 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 9 18:19:45 1993 PST From: Greene (#49795) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Wait...did you say you made '@quota ' work for everyone, yduJ? -------------------------- Message 35 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 9 19:49:07 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Greene (#49795) and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) No, Greene, I did not so say. I said I added the fact that quota should be public knowledge to my petition. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 36 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Wed Nov 10 12:45:20 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Another rewrite I rewrote this to remove some of the ridiculous run-on sentences, and put the important bits first, and do a little P.R. in the Rationale. I don't think I made any technical changes in this rewrite. (If I did I hope someone catches me!) --yduJ -------------------------- Message 37 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Wed Nov 10 15:38:37 1993 PST From: Greene (#49795) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Congratulations You know, this is best example of a petition ever. Not only is it the most useful idea to ever be debated by petition, it is also the most interactive of any petition. yduJ is interested in finding the best possible text to accomplish what she has in mind...she is not wedded to some pet phraseology or concept that would make her petition stagnate. Anyway, I'd just like to point this out to other petition authors. Look how dynamic this is, changes all the time, ever-improving. It's pretty exciting. Keep this in mind. G. -------------------------- Message 38 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Wed Nov 10 23:30:40 1993 PST From: Dred (#49925) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: minor typo Just a minor typo in the second to last paragraph: > @recreate may be changed so that if a is over size quota it will give an If what is? The player I think you mean.. Dred ^^^^^^^ -------------------------- Message 39 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 11 03:53:20 1993 PST From: Kilik (#2819) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: the other side of the coin Well large objects are, um, big. In themselves they don't cause lag or a strain on moo resources except at checkpoint time and if they lead to swapping (very bad). What causes lag are executing verbs Lots of them, a whole task queue full eating ticks and seconds as fast as they can be generated by the march of time. Now, with the caps on logins raised and a fast cpu the lag meter is often pegged near zero even with 130+ players on. The lagstorms that do occur have the characteristics you might expect from an unstable feedback loop, perhaps arising from a :notify() cascade among interacting objects. By the way, my census gadget has recorded a maximum of 156 users on at any one time. It samples every 15 minutes, so for short periods the number could have been larger. -------------------------- Message 40 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 11 07:44:38 1993 PST From: Greene (#49795) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Well, what about this. I believe yduJ's concept is that the larger the DB, the less likely that it will fit in RAM. If it doesn't fit in RAM, then it has to run off the hard disk. And that would make us sad. Eh? -------------------------- Message 41 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 11 08:22:53 1993 PST From: Klaatu (#57052) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: A very good start! I've read this petition and the mail, and I'm very impressed--this is an excellent idea. The only suggestion I have is that the quota on number of objects not be abolished. Instead, I'd grant the ARB the power to also have such a quota, at their discretion. Giving the ARB the power to enforce a quota on the number of objects would allow them more flexibility in case, for some reason, the total number of objects on Lambda becomes a problem. Also, the ARB could use both quotas to ham-handedly 'tune' the average object size, which might be useful. I'm signing this petition and intend to vote for if it comes to ballot, in any case, with or without the implementation of my suggestion. --Klaatu -------------------------- Message 42 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 11 11:25:24 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Klaatu (#57052) and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: A very good start! Unless I'm off my mark, objects really aren't a problem. I should ask Haakon if there are any lurking object number lossages in the server. The smallest object is about 100 bytes. I guess, I just don't see any reason to limit *number* of objects, provided that the total memory consumption is controlled. I was thinking last night about possible out-of-control scenarios, where a program could get out of control doing create()s, and since the size calculation wouldn't be for a week, it could just spew and spew. So I thought a possible control on that would be to implement a "maximum number of uncalculated objects"---so you'd have to stop every 50 @creates and push some button to do the calculation for the uninitialized objects. I wasn't going to put this in the petition specifically, because I thought it would add complexity, and that it would be within implementation bounds to just go ahead and do this. If someone thinks I would be overstepping bounds in implementation if I added some sort of temporary limit like this that wasn't in the petition proper, I will go ahead and add it. Note also that this petition has a large barn door in it which permits the ARB as a group to modify the details of the plan. Adding an actual object limit would be within this domain, I think. Thing is, I wanted to be able to modify details if we were having unforseen problems. If you can think of an example for why an object limit would be useful (other than the temporary limit I mention above), please post. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 43 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Thu Nov 11 11:44:45 1993 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: object limits I think an object limit is a very good idea, actually. The object limit could float upward slowly, e.g., only *after* a size calculation is done. I do see a reason to limit the number of objects as well as the size in bytes, mainly because of the number of various audit loops that are proportional to the total number of objects in the database. (You know, for i in [0..tonum(max_object())] if (valid(toobj(i))) ... ....). For this kind of reason, I'd not want someone to be able to create more than, say, three times their nominal object quota merely because all the objects were small. -------------------------- Message 44 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Fri Nov 12 12:58:09 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Well, I signed it. I think the only outstanding objection is Grump's, where he wants a cap on object usage, arguing that many loops through the DB are based on 1..max_object. I'm not sure that this is a real worry, given that 50,000 bytes is a max of 500 objects (at 100 per), and those objects are pretty skimpy---absolutely no customization. Even an exit is 400 bytes. So more likely a user will max out at 50-100 objects. It's pretty likely that to get an increase from the ARB they'll have to have done more work than that: I didn't leave any room for verbs, that's all tinyscenery. So, in short, I think we can get away without an object max, except for a temporary one as I describe in a previous message on this list. Does anyone think I must add that safeguard to the petition body itself? Please get your comments in, as I'm starting to collect signatures. It's still early enough that I'm happy to erase the ones I've got in order to make changes. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 45 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Fri Nov 12 17:44:15 1993 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: objection My main objection is that this kind of restructuring will probably require some 'tweaking' to get it right, and the petition doesn't spell out how that tweaking is to be done. It says 'by the ARB' but is that by a majority vote? Consensus? As it stands, the most serious flaw is that if a player is under eir size quota, they basically have unlimited building priveledges until their size is recomputed again! Since there's no provision for forcing players to recycle things once their size quota is exceeded, it will be likely that many players will wind up exceeding their size quota. I'm also concerned that it says 'at least once a week, the total object sizes will be computed'; however, I can imagine some circumstances where doing so might be unreasonable without contributing excessively to lag. Perhaps it should say something like 'at an interval determined to be convenient' or something. -------------------------- Message 46 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Fri Nov 12 21:43:02 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Gru (#122) and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: objection Well, actually it says it "can be tweaked by the usual ARB voting rules (whatever those may be at the time)". I think that's pretty explicit about the mechanism for tweaking. I also believe that "at least once a week" is a number or process that is covered by this tweaking. Your second paragraph ("As it stands, the most serious flaw is that if a player is under eir size quota, they basically have unlimited building priveledges until their size is recomputed again!") implies that you *do* believe that I must put into my petition the temporary limit I mentioned should go into the implementation. Could you be explicit on this point? Am I reading you correctly? I'll put it in... -------------------------- Message 47 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 13 15:47:26 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Changed it, lost the sigs... I'll send mail around when I've finished the current round of changes. You can see some of them right now---the substantive one is the last line. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 48 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 13 21:59:29 1993 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986), *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812), and *Petition:Empower-ARB (#60888) Subject: alternate petition I feel a bit uncomfortable offering a counter-proposal at this point, but I was having trouble saying what I meant and thought I'd write it up in the form of a petition: *petition:empower-arb (#60888) is the simple proposal that will allow the ARB to establish, as well as change, its own rules. I like it because it is simple, and also sets out how the rules are to be changed (e.g., ARB members write verbs that will run with ARB perms.) Both Xythian's and yduJ's petitions are not incompatible, just that they're weaker and only establish the `initial' scenario. -------------------------- Message 49 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sun Nov 14 11:38:54 1993 PST From: quota-restructuring (#25812) To: *Wizard-List (#6428), yduJ (#68), and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Request for vetting Reply-to: yduJ (#68), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) yduJ, the author of *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812): `A Rational Building Quota System', has acquired 10 signatures on her petition and is submitting it to you, the wizards, for vetting. Please look it over and either 1) type `approve #25812' to grant it your mark of approval or 2) type `deny #25812' to refuse such approval and then send mail to **Petition:quota-restructuring explaining your reasons for doing so. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -------------------------- Message 50 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sun Nov 14 13:01:21 1993 PST From: Mickey (#52413) To: Gru (#122), *Petition:ARB-Rules (#47986), *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812), and *Petition:Empower-ARB (#60888) Subject: Re: alternate petition I don't mind the idea of separating process from initial setup, but I think a lot is lost in Grump's proposal that is in yduJ's. And I'm not confident that if you split the issue into two petitions, both parts will get passed. So I'd rather see yduJ's passed and then modified later as needed. I also would still like to see a 1 month delay on enactment of rule changes by the ARB. I think there is no good reason for ARB policies to have to change instantly, and I think there is a lot of reason for them not to. Further, I find the idea of advance notice and possible blockage of rules changes WAY preferrable to the idea of impeaching one or more ARB people after the fact if you don't like an ARB ruling. I basically don't think the latter action is accurate, practical, or efficient. Both petitions need this fix, in my opinion. I'm still leaving my signature on yduJ's proposal because I think it's closest for now and I'll just lobby for change if it makes it in. Where Grump's proposal is so watered down as to do basically nothing intelligible but give the ARB free rule over LambdaMOO. I don't like that. --M -------------------------- Message 51 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 15 06:49:28 1993 PST From: Euphistopheles (#50222) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: yes. Hear, hear. Next we need 'nice' and 'nohup' in core. yoof -------------------------- Message 52 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 15 09:40:50 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Changing again... Rog has a change he wants me to make, and I think he's right, so I'm going to be making it. Unfortunately this will erase the sigs... Also, I don't have time this afternoon so it won't be til tonight. Please hold off on signing, or you'll just have to do it again. I will send private mail to all signers at the time of erasure to remind them to re-read and sign. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 53 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 15 16:00:03 1993 PST From: quota-restructuring (#25812) To: *Wizard-List (#6428), yduJ (#68), and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Request for vetting Reply-to: yduJ (#68), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) yduJ, the author of Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812): `A Rational Building Quota System', has acquired 10 signatures on her petition and is submitting it to you, the wizards, for vetting. Please look it over and either 1) type `approve #25812' to grant it your mark of approval or 2) type `deny #25812' to refuse such approval and then send mail to *Petition:quota-restructuring explaining your reasons for doing so. Thank you for your attention to this matter. -------------------------- Message 54 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 15 16:23:46 1993 PST From: quota-restructuring (#25812) To: yduJ (#68), *Wizard-List (#6428), and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Petition vetted Reply-to: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) The wizard ur-Rog has determined that Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812): `A Rational Building Quota System' is implementable and has therefore vetted it. -------------------------- Message 55 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 16 19:07:00 1993 PST From: Beth (#56762) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Forced losses? What happens to people how have over the limit right now? I'm just a simple user, nothing really big, yet have 87112. By looking at this, I feel fat. I'd rather not go on a diet here. I like the things I have. -------------------------- Message 56 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 16 19:08:29 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Beth (#56762) and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: Forced losses? If you're over size quota at the start, all that happens is you don't get to make anything new. If you have done work that is of the sort typically approved increases by the ARB (see help quota-policy), you should apply for an increase, and most likely receive it. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 57 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 16 19:56:29 1993 PST From: Tailchaser (#54894) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: Forced losses? Hey, cool. Last two messages were going to be my question and my answer... With 10 objects and 91K, 63K of which are himself, Tailchaser -------------------------- Message 58 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Wed Nov 17 02:32:15 1993 PST From: Susan_Powter (#33119) To: Beth (#56762) and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: Forced losses? > From: Beth (#56762) > I'm just a simple user, nothing really big, yet have 87112. By > looking at this, I feel fat. I'd rather not go on a diet here. I > like the things I have. You gotta @rmverb! You gotta @recycle! Stop the insanity! Buy my videos! -------------------------- Message 59 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 20 02:44:55 1993 PST From: Shungnak (#50276) To: *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: one question If someone is over their limit, can they still receive mail? Wouldn't receiving mail be increasing ones size? Or am I totally chasing my tail? -------------------------- Message 60 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 20 13:15:41 1993 PST From: APHiD (#33119) To: Shungnak (#50276) and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: one question > From: Shungnak (#50276) > If someone is over their limit, can they still receive mail? > Wouldn't receiving mail be increasing ones size? Yes, mail increases your size, but who's fault is that? The sender's or receiver's? Maybe mail should be counted as the sender's responsibility from the time of sending til about a week later when it becomes the receiver's responsibility. Don't know how this would be implemented but it should be possible. -------------------------- Message 61 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 20 13:38:59 1993 PST From: Joe (#2612) To: APHiD (#33119), Shungnak (#50276), and *Petition:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: one question > Maybe mail should be counted as the sender's responsibility from > the time of sending til about a week later when it becomes the > receiver's responsibility. For interpersonal mail, it would probably make more sense to count mail as the sender's until the receiver has read it. Mailing lists are another problem. On the other hand, there are other objects that other people can artificially inflate the size of. Why should we make an exception for mail? Idunno. I just post to hear myself think. -------------------------- Message 62 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 23 18:01:55 1993 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: mail size I think the ballot, as it stands, says that mail size is the responsibility of the recipient of the mail; I think this is right, since the recipient (or owner of the mailing list) is the only person who has the ability to REMOVE the mail. The primary goal of this petition is to give us a mechanism where we can control the database size, and thus reduce the time for system checkpoint. I urge you to vote yes. (I also urge you to read and sign #60888, which makes the 2/3 vote mechanism explicit.) -------------------------- Message 63 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 23 19:01:15 1993 PST From: Roy (#56637) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: I agree yet I have one problem: What will happen to people who have written FO's that are publicly in use, and need lots of space, or mail lists that are publicly in use and popular? Roy -------------------------- Message 64 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 23 19:09:10 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Roy (#56637) and *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: I agree yet I have one problem: This petition states that those who are over quota and have objects such as FO's and popular mailing lists should apply for quota. I recommend documenting your FO and making sure everything really works before applying---that'll help your case. Basically, if your work is good, you get more quota. If you are over quota, no objects are recycled, and no properties are removed---weight loss entirely is your decision. You may continue to receive mail even while over quota. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 65 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 23 19:12:57 1993 PST From: Pol (#38904) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: I agree yet I have one problem: You may continue to receive mail, or your mail recipient may? If Booga is 100,00 bytes over quota with *smut, can it still get mail until she looses weight? As to personal mail.. how about a forced @mail-options +netmail for anyone over quota? Ro -------------------------- Message 66 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 23 19:37:07 1993 PST From: Roy (#56637) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Perhaps a bit off topic, but it is still along the lines of quota... As we all know, a large percent of the space needed for Lambda comes from personal mail. There is a mechanism in place to forward the MOOmail to characters, but not vice-versa yet. It might be a good idea to get this working at the same time, or shortly after the quota-restructuring occurs. Roy -------------------------- Message 67 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 23 20:36:47 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Pol (#38904) and *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: I agree yet I have one problem: Taking your example of Booga being "overweight" (she's going to *kill* me, I just know it :-), yes *smut can continue to receive mail. Existing properties on existing objects will continue to be modifiable in the normal ways (including growth), even when over quota. It is just *new* creations which will be denied---no @create, no @copy. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 68 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 23 20:41:23 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Roy (#56637) and *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: Perhaps a bit off topic, but it is still along the lines of quota... Receiving mail will be difficult: it must be mediated by an out-of-moo mail filter that understands how to connect to moo and execute the appropriate commands, or which knows to store the mail until moo connects to it and retrieves the mail. Such a service has not been offered to LambdaMOO by anyone, and we have enough things to do without writing C code as well as MOO code. (Well, I do, anyway.) If someone had such a service to offer us (either by giving us fully debugged runnable code for the sparcstation, or by offering a port moo could connect to to retrieve its mail), we might be able to write the MOO end of it... Any volunteers? --yduJ -------------------------- Message 69 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 23 20:50:21 1993 PST From: Blackbriar (#30119) To: yduJ (#68), Roy (#56637), and *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: Perhaps a bit off topic, but it is still along the lines of quota... yduJ: > Receiving mail will be difficult: it must be mediated by an > out-of-moo mail filter that understands how to connect to moo and > execute the appropriate commands, or which knows to store the mail > until moo connects to it and retrieves the mail. Such a service > has not been offered to LambdaMOO by anyone, and we have enough > things to do without writing C code as well as MOO code. (Well, I > do, anyway.) If someone had such a service to offer us (either by > giving us fully debugged runnable code for the sparcstation, or by > offering a port moo could connect to to retrieve its mail), we > might be able to write the MOO end of it... Any volunteers? Opal and I are working on something to do this. Not that it'll necessarily -work-, but. Blackbriar -------------------------- Message 70 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Wed Nov 24 19:00:07 1993 PST From: Puff (#1449) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Vote No I've voted no on this ballot. While I feel it's an excellent idea to switch to bytesize-based quota, and the implementation is acceptable, it's bad precedent to make ARB policy via petition. If you want to change the way the ARB makes policy, fine, pass a petition to do that. But doing two very different things (changing the quota basis and changing the way the ARB makes quota policy) in the same petition is inappropriate and conducive to "bad law." Puff -------------------------- Message 71 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Fri Nov 26 15:29:18 1993 PST From: Greene (#49795) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) I've found that no precedent has ever been set by petition on this MOO, so why is this always considered a valid concern? -------------------------- Message 72 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 27 04:16:33 1993 PST From: Vince (#58832) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: Vote No (Puff) Puff says that the idea and the implementation are probably good ideas, but the way it's being gone about is "inappropriate and conducive to bad law". Well, Puff, if it works, then it's new law, neither good nor bad. You have to have a rationale before you can call a law or the particular legislative process bad. I happen to like democracy, usually. At least when it works. This is a reasonable idea, and it is intended for the strict benefit of the MOO. Voting no because the hoops aren't being jumped through in the correct sequence is kinda illogical. I suggest that you all consider the issue--the "meat" of the petition, and vote based on whether the idea is reasonable, well thought out, and not fatally flawed. This is the best use for a petition, even if the original concept of petitions on this moo was to limit them to minor policy decisions. Considering how most people are too apathetic to even bother voting or signing petitions to begin with, a far-reaching (or even a too-far-reaching) petition isn't in much danger of being passed. I haven't expressed my opinion or told you my vote on this petition, and that was intentional. All I'm urging is that you consider the issue at stake here, and not the theoretical ramifications of passing this petition on the entire legislative process for Lambda MOO. Thanks for taking time to read this. Vince -------------------------- Message 73 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 27 12:47:16 1993 PST From: Lambda (#50) To: Vince (#58832) and *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: Vote No (Puff) > Date: Sat Nov 27 04:16:33 1993 PST > From: Vince (#58832) > > This is the best use for a petition, even if the original concept of > petitions on this moo was to limit them to minor policy decisions. Um, excuse me? Where did you get this impression? The petition system was created to completely shift the burden of social policy judgement from the wizards to the users. That doesn't sound like only `minor policy decisions' to me... Lambda/Haakon -------------------------- Message 74 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 27 22:03:19 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Vote Yes (yduJ) I got confused by Vince's argument, since he was trying to be neutral: he completely lost me in his point! But anyway, in rebuttal to Puff: I believe that this petition is precisely within the grounds of the petition system, and that you should, as Vince points out, vote for it if you agree with it. Don't base your vote on some orthogonal idea of what the petition system should or should not be; that is for petitions *about* the petitions system, not for petitions *using* the petitions system to decide. (Especially if you were going to vote "no" on this basis alone! Please vote yes!) --yduJ -------------------------- Message 75 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 27 22:56:33 1993 PST From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: amounts. I realize that this allows for change, but I've a comment/question. If one quota == 10,000 bytes (roughly). Then awards of 50,000 bytes is just 5 quota. The average award now is 20 quota, isn't it? It seems that 50,000 is awfully low. In checking with the average area size of my stuff, it seems that most every good area is well over 50,000 (Maybe it's just my areas.. hmm). It seems though that verb intensive areas (especially if the verbs are well documented) are mostly over 50,000. Which means that an area could not be finished and working to present to the ARB before requesting more 'bytes'. -M -------------------------- Message 76 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sat Nov 27 23:18:01 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: amounts. Urk, I didn't send this to the list. Sorry, Moriah. I think I should have made that be "2,000 per unused quota point", which is *actually* the amount of the "average" object on lambdamoo. 10,000 is *not* the average size of objects. We would already be crashed and burnt and totally unusable (you think it's bad now?) if it were... Also, we will have to use this system for a while in order to find out how well it works. It may well be that the initial 50,000 is sufficiently small that people can't comply with current ARB guidelines for quota increase. That's why I made it possible for the ARB to change the numbers. But we really won't know until we try it, I think. Let's give it a try! --yduJ p.s. for people who use waffle's hyperaudit feature, I've just written @paudit-size-summary, which does the obvious summary of projects by size. -------------------------- Message 77 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 29 14:41:53 1993 PST From: Puff (#1449) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Vote No (Puff) I posted my reasons for voting no, and encouraged others to (in a nutshell, this ballot is trying to do two things at once; define ARB policy-making procedure and alter the basis for quota from objects to size. This is a Bad way to do things). Vince posted a rebuttal... er, sort of. yduJ also posted a rebuttal. But neither of them really dealt with the issue I raised, that of pairing dissimilar issues in one petition. They do this in real life in state and national legislature, and it leads to all sorts of unwieldly compromises based pretty much on haggling and not much on what makes sense. > Well, Puff, if it works, then it's new law, neither good nor bad. You're implying that I said yduJ's ballot was bad law. I did not. I said that she's doing two different things at once, and THAT is CONDUCIVE to bad law. It's a trend I very strongly want to discourage. > All I'm urging is that you consider the issue at stake here, Precisely my point. There are THREE issues here; how the ARB measures quota, how the ARB makes policy, and how this ballot is attempting to deal with too many issues at once. What if I agree that quota should be based on bytesize, but not with the ARB policy-making procedures in the ballot? Or vice-versa? By tying two unassociated issues together you promulgate something not necessarily worthy (the procedural changes) on the coattails of something extremely worthy (the bytesize quota basis). Later on, yduJ rebutts: > Don't base your vote on some orthogonal idea of what the petition > system should or should not be Ah, but that's precisely the point. There's an old saying that "you vote wtih your feet/dollars/whatever." Well, this is one of those rare cases where I get to vote with my VOTE, and I encourage others to do so. The pairing of dissimilar issues in a ballot is a BAD THING. I urge the voters to discourage this by voting against this ballot. Puff -------------------------- Message 78 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 29 14:47:07 1993 PST From: Chaos (#6853) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Perhaps the ARB and the quota system have something in common, Puff? In as far as the specifications of granting amounts from the ARB, I think is entirely acceptable. She's simply providing a place to start with. The last sentence mentions that it is possible to change the amounts via normal ARB means, therefore in a sense its almost like her numbers are simply suggestions.. -------------------------- Message 79 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 29 15:14:10 1993 PST From: Networker (#50261) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Vote no, er, if you want to. Mmm, I voted yes on this beastie a couple of weeks back but I've changed my mind since. I'd love to see a more rational way of managing quota, if only to reduce the rate of increase in db usage. The proposals given so far seem fine, but as Puff's pointed out the ballot itself is operating with a hidden agenda (that's a turn of phrase, not an accusation, ok?). I'm personally undecided as to the best way to manage quota REQUESTS, the ARB or a mechanism like it might not be what'd suit me best for instance. For as long as I'm undecided on the worth of the ARB I'm not going to attempt to cast in stone one of the ARB's operating procedures. In my opinion, the management of quota and the management of quota requests are two different subjects. If this ballot was re-worded to exclude any and all references to the ARB, as a specific mechanism for regulating who got what and when, then I would certainly reconsider my decision. This may or may not be 'bad law'; at the end of the day I can @quit and drink good beer so what do I care what you do to yourselves in here. BUT, it's a badly worded ballot and sets a poor precedent for future decisions of this kind. Please vote no. Net. -------------------------- Message 80 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 29 16:20:45 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: What this ballot is trying to do Puff is simply wrong that this ballot is trying to change ARB rules. This ballot is merely attempting to provide for changes to this ballot's rules by means OTHER than the lengthy petition process. I am pretty sure that we will want to change some procedures or numbers specified in this petition after we have had some experience with it. However, we will not know *to what* we should be making those changes *without* that experience. I can't be omnicient, to know for certain exactly how the new limits will affect people's building, their need for more quota, and the workload of the ARB. Obviously I'm making some sweeping changes here: I'd like to allow for a mechanism to learn from those changes, and adapt to the new system in ways that are best for the community. Without waiting months for a petition to go through. It was at Grump's request that I added the line which mentions how the ARB can change the details of this petition. Note that in current practice the ARB can change things such as the default object quota for a new player --- it's not like I'm making this idea up out of whole cloth, I am simply adapting an existing mechanism for a new purpose. Re Networker's statement, "For as long as I'm undecided on the worth of the ARB I'm not going to attempt to cast in stone one of the ARB's operating procedures," it's really OK. It's not cast in stone. It's only a petition. In order to remove and/or replace the ARB, you need a petition anyway. It would take the tiniest effort to make that petition discuss how changes to default byte quota should be made, as well as discussing all the myriad other issues that would be required by such a petition. Please vote "YES" on this ballot. It does not change the ARB operating procedures, except to accomodate the allocation of byte quota rather than object quota. Byte quota makes sense. Object quota doesn't make sense. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 81 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 29 18:01:18 1993 PST From: Euphistopheles (#50222) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: yes (yoof) Puff is right that joining unrelated clauses complicates legislation; but I do not believe it is possible to legislate the distinction between unrelated clauses, and clauses which are necessary to each other (like including the budget for a bill, in the bill). In my opinion this ballot is largely consistent with sensible progress for ARB evolution, and answers the very real problem of the un-reality of object-based quota. The MOO is VR, but diskspace is Real. I have voted for this. yoof -------------------------- Message 82 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 29 23:43:46 1993 PST From: Patroclus (#56329) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: vote no on unfair allocation of resources Most people seem to agree that storage should be allocated in bytes rather than object count. But that is not the most important issue in this ballot, as Puff and Networker point out. The question that needs to be debated is how to allocate precious storage in a fair manner. I believe the policy proposed in yduJ's ballot is not fair. It takes the elitist stance of increasing the power of the ARB, awarding actual quota increases to the "good old boys" favored by the ARB, and setting the default quota for the rest of us to a very low level. Is this fair? And furthermore, is the MOO going to prosper and grow creatively under the central management of this newly strengthened ARB? Please vote no on #25812. -------------------------- Message 83 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Nov 29 23:50:09 1993 PST From: Quinn (#19845) To: *revenant (#46455), *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812), and *social-issues (#7233) Subject: VOTE YES ON #25812 FOR MORE CLOTHES *b:quota-restructuring changes quota measurement from number of objects to SIZE of objects. This means you'll be able to have more relatively small objects. Like clothing. The average article of clothing is only ~800 bytes. Under the new ssytem you'll be allocated 50 THOUSAND bytes of quota. That means a lot of clothes and other cool little VR (virtually real) objects. Note this isn't a free ride. You'll have to trim the mail and fart verbs off yourself. But at least you'll have some finer control over where your quota goes, instead of being charged the same on an 800 byte piece of clothing as some pig is for 100K of personal mail. `read #25812' for more details, and then `vote YES on #25812' for more CLOTHES, more fun, and more VR. -Quinn -------------------------- Message 85 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 30 00:10:30 1993 PST From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: FAIRNESS Patroclus: >The question that needs to be debated is how to allocate precious > storage in a fair manner. So make a petition about it. This one doesn't change anything about WHO gives out quota, it simply more accurately defines HOW MUCH is given out. Patroclus: >I believe the policy proposed in yduJ's ballot is not fair. It takes > the elitist stance of increasing the power of the ARB, awarding actual > quota increases to the "good old boys" favored by the ARB, and setting > the default quota for the rest of us to a very low level. This petition does not increase the power of the ARB. It retains the status quo-- the ARB gives out quota. It will continue to do so when this passes. As for the `good old boy' mentality, that's just plain false. If anything, we should be afraid of the senseless elections process which is putting the Big Men and Women on Campus into positions they aren't experienced enough to be in. 50000 bytes is not a `very low level' for someone who's here just to have fun. And that's who this plan is for. Programmers and heavy builders would have to apply for more quota to do what they wanna do anyway. This ballot would allow new players a great freedom with their allocated bytes, instead of the current ABSURD system of 1 object == 1 quota. Wanna know what's unfair? You 1K boxer shorts costing as much as someone's 200K mailing list. That's what's unfair. Get your just share. VOTE YES ON #25812. -------------------------- Message 86 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 30 02:09:58 1993 PST From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: discussion Quinn sez: >This petition does not increase the power of the ARB. It >retains the status quo-- the ARB gives out quota. It will >continue to do so when this passes. Not quite. I understand what has been argued about the 'back door' here. As best I can recollect, there hasn't been a petition that specifically outlines the ARB's duties as the great guardian of the quota. It's just been assumed that it would continue to do so. This petition would 'back-door' the ARB's duties in to the ballot/law without THAT being the main issue.. or even a focus. I'm not saying that the ARB's job being to guard the quota is wrong.. I'm simply saying that Puff is right with his argument that there is more addressed here in the wording of this petition than simply byte vs. object. There has been MUCH bru-ha-ha lately about being 'sticklers' for following ballots 'to the letter' rather than the intent or spirit.. or even the discussion list for a ballot. I thoroughly believe we should examine each ballot's wording with an electron microscope, to make sure that the intent of the thing will be implemented.. no less and no more. This ballot DOES have more to it than meets the eye at first glance. Understand carefully what you're reading. You are 'piggy-backing' in some of the ARB's duties OFFICIALLY with this ballot. Is this what you want? If not, it is wrong to settle for this wording just to enact the system. A new petition can be written and passed without the 'back-door' for the ARB. So, vote no. If you don't care, or wish to see the ARB's duties solidified officially, then vote yes. Either way, be aware of what you're doing. >And that's who this plan is for. Programmers and heavy >builders would have to apply for more quota to do what they >wanna do anyway. Not necessarily, Quinn. I've applied for and received 1 quota increase of 20 objects. I've only used 33 of the 41 I have so far. But, under this new system, i'd have had to apply for and receive 8 increases.. to do what i've done so far.. And I keep my mail-bytes down! -M -------------------------- Message 87 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 30 03:01:57 1993 PST From: Quinn (#19845) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: oldnewq >Not necessarily, Quinn. I've applied for and received 1 quota >increase of 20 objects. I've only used 33 of the 41 I have >so far. But, under this new system, i'd have had to apply for >and receive 8 increases.. to do what i've done so far.. The quota you received then and what you'd receive under the new system are incompatible. The ARB gives according to need (or amount requested). If you needed lotsa bytes and we thought you'd done well with what you had, you'd get the increase. -------------------------- Message 88 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 30 10:56:06 1993 PST From: Patroclus (#56329) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: good old boys This ballot states: "For new players, and players who have not received a quota increase from the ARB, the size quota shall be 50,000 bytes". It also states: "For players who have received a quota increase from the ARB, this amount shall be the total space they and all their objects are currently taking up ... plus 100,000 bytes". If that is fair, then it is some new definition of the word "fair" that I am not familiar with. -------------------------- Message 89 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 30 12:39:24 1993 PST From: Gru (#122) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: explicitly giving the ARB power over quota I encourage you to read #60888 and sign it, so that you can vote directly on the issue of giving the ARB complete control over quota. As it stands, if the ARB isn't in charge of quota policy, who is? -------------------------- Message 90 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 30 12:45:06 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Replies to various messages Patroclus, I do believe that you're being unfair. You quote the petition: "For players who have received a quota increase from the ARB, this amount shall be the total space they and all their objects are currently taking up .. plus 100,000 bytes". It is interesting to note that the stuff in the ... includes the words "Abuse of this initialization phase by way of creating large useless object(s) just prior to implementation will be grounds for reduction of the initial quota by the amount of the large useless object(s)" then "plus 100,000 bytes". The 100,000 mentioned in the petition is a PENALTY for abusers, Patroclus. REDUCTION of bytes quota. Let's not have any more quoting out of context. Moriah, you say, "As best I can recollect, there hasn't been a petition that specifically outlines the ARB's duties as the great guardian of the quota." While it is true that the ARB's duties have not been outlined, *b:new-arb does state, "All current (as of 5/3/1993) structures for quota-granting remain in place." I do believe that makes it clear that the ARB *is* the great guardian of quota, though its actual rules are not yet written down by petition. Check out #47986, *P:ARB-Rules, or #60888, *p:Empower-ARB, if you wish to address this issue. It isn't relevant to the issue of whether quota is allocated via objects or via bytes. Let's keep our comments on topic! --yduJ -------------------------- Message 91 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 30 15:07:44 1993 PST From: Klaatu (#57052) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Fiddling while the MOO burns I've voted for this ballot. This petition simply recognizes the fact of life that the ARB _is_ the body that controls quota right now. Whether or not this petition passes, it will continue to control quota, unless or until someone puts forward some other solution to quota control, and that solution passes a ballot. Those who oppose this petition on the grounds that it is a back-door means of giving the ARB authority to control quota have not proposed a better solution. In the meantime, the db continues to expand. Db bloat is a here-and-now problem that affects every MOOer; it is a clear danger to the MOO. yduJ has proposed a simple solution that makes use of the quota mechanism already in place here. If the ballot passes, the db size problem will be dealt with quickly and hopefully effectively. I favor the passage of this ballot. Let's institute some mechanism to deal with db bloat. Then, we can all haggle over the ARB, etc., at our leisure. --Klaatu -------------------------- Message 92 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 30 17:27:37 1993 PST From: Patroclus (#56329) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: my mistake My apologies to yduJ. I dropped a paren while I was reading that section. -------------------------- Message 93 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 30 17:54:30 1993 PST From: Patroclus (#56329) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: a question I am still bothered by the differing treatment of those who have been granted ARB quota increases in the past versus the rest of us. They get to keep their existing quota. What happens to others who own more than 50,000 bytes and then have their quota defined to be 50,000? Will they have to recycle things or just not be able to build? -------------------------- Message 94 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Nov 30 20:54:13 1993 PST From: yduJ (#68) To: Patroclus (#56329) and *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: a question This petition *requires* no recycling or reduction of people who are over quota. They will merely be unable to build additional things. Should they wish to build, they'll have to go on a weight loss program, or apply for enough quota to cover the existing stuff. Assuming that their stuff is interesting, themely, public, etc. (see help quota-advice) they'll probably be granted enough to retain their existing stuff plus build more. (Generally, folks should probably try to lose weight *first*, as a large body of unthemely or personal junk is not going to sit well.) As for why the two classes of players: One class of players has already undergone the ARB's scrutiny over their objects, picking at this and that detail and sometimes being quite the whiners. (Just ask Sick. He got turned down twice before finally being given more quota.) The other class of players has not undergone any such scrutiny. Sure, sometimes the ARB is less finicky than others, and it isn't always completely fair, so some players may have gotten quota on the basis of work which isn't actually up to snuff. The ARB has gotten better over the years, though, first figuring out what their job *should* be, and then figuring out *how* to do it. --yduJ -------------------------- Message 95 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sun Dec 5 13:55:43 1993 PST From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: quota and petitions If this is enacted, what is the ruling on petitions? They deplete your quota by 1 but are not technically yours. Will we still receive the 10,000 bytes for the petition as if we hadn't used the quota? Or will we be penalized for participating in the politics round here? -M -------------------------- Message 96 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Sun Dec 5 14:50:25 1993 PST From: Blackbriar (#30119) To: Moriah (#50459) and *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Re: quota and petitions Moriah: > If this is enacted, what is the ruling on petitions? > They deplete your quota by 1 but are not technically yours. Will > we still receive the 10,000 bytes for the petition as if we hadn't > used the quota? Or will we be penalized for participating in the > politics round here? I don't see that petitions count against quota. Where do they? Blackbriar -------------------------- Message 97 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Mon Dec 6 05:13:28 1993 PST From: Moriah (#50459) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: petitions Oops. My mistake. Several people indicated that a petition took up one of your own quota during discussions with me on *b:time. I never bothered to check it out to see if they were true. Serves me right huh!.. -M -------------------------- Message 98 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Dec 7 17:47:58 1993 PST From: quota-restructuring (#25812) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) Subject: Voting closes on ballot #25812: Final Results The voting period for Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): `A Rational Building Quota System' has ended. The final vote count is as follows: In favor: 271 Against: 122 Abstaining: 169 The proposal has passed and will be implemented by the wizards as soon as possible. -------------------------- Message 99 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Tue Dec 7 18:09:40 1993 PST From: quota-restructuring (#25812) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) and *Wizard-List (#6428) Subject: Ballot statistics A total of 1581 eligible voters logged in during the ballot period. Of these, 562people or 35% cast votes of any sort; 393people or 24% cast `yes' or `no' votes. -------------------------- Message 100 from *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): Date: Fri Dec 2 23:02:16 1994 PST From: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) To: *Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812) and *Wizard-List (#6428) The wizard Nosredna has finished implementing ballot Ballot:quota-restructuring (#25812): `A Rational Building Quota System'. --------------------------