My vote would be to do something along the lines of:
put "blessed" servers at the top of the list, and all other
servers below, in an "experimental" section.  If there are
still too many servers, then the number of slots for experimental
servers could be limited to one or two with a wait queue.

My reasoning is: if we further cirpple people from being able
to make changes and make new (possibly unpopular) ideas visible
where the community can shop them out, then we'll have doomed
ourselves on a sinking ship.  I think we could do a better job
of letting prospective developers try and fail with new ideas
(and then possibly revise them) on their own time, instead of
turning them all away.

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 01:17:39PM +1000, James Cameron wrote:
> At the moment the metaservers accept new server listings from anybody
> who wants to set up a server.  It has been this way for many years.
> I'm not sure this is such a good idea, given the current size of games
> and the rate of play.
> What do people think ...
> 1.  lock down the metaservers so that new servers cannot be listed,
> 2.  add a way to accept new servers,
> 3.  keep the server to metaserver UDP solicitation channel open for
> existing servers.
> This is just for discussion purposes.  The infrastructure team would
> benefit from knowing what people think.
> -- 
> James Cameron    mailto:quozl at