>As I said, I am not opposed to the split of the list, but it strikes me
>as odd that Eric would go ahead and delete all EARN users without
>letting me know. That way, an uninterrupted service could have been
>provided to these users. Only a 'hey, I am going to split it' would have
>been enough for me to create the list, and place the EARN members from
>1.6 list to LSTERN-L
Well, some times I wonder what I have to do to make myself clear. Here is
an excerpt from a message I sent to the NOG 1 month ago:
>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 90 22:29:53 O
>
>(...) I was pleased to notice the birth of a new LISTEARN Special
>Interest Group (...) Could someone give me the electronic mail address
>of the associated list, or create it if what we're talking about is a
>metaphysical group with no real existence, so that I can move all EARN
>recipients of LSTSRV-L to that list, and close "The LSTSRV-L EARN
>Special Interest Group" to EARN subscriptions?
>
>Thanks, Eric
I was under the impression that this note said, quite clearly, that I had
very definite plans to remove EARN recipients from LSTSRV-L and move them
to a new list. There was a short discussion on this topic between Turgut,
Alain Auroux and myself, and the last note I got on the subject was the
following:
>Date: Wed, 28 Mar 90 15:39:52 EDT
>From: Alain Auroux <AUROUX@FRORS12>
>Subject: Re: LISTEARN Special interest group
>To: Eric Thomas <ERIC@SEARN>
>cc: Stefano Trumpy <[log in to unmask]>,
> Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@TREARN>,
> Hans Deckers <DECK@BMLSCK11>
>In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 28 Mar 1990 14:39:42 O from <ERIC@SEARN>
>
>(...) Now back on your remarks on the LSTSRV-L list: I understand your
>arguments on the advantages/drawbacks of having either one common or 2
>different lists, and I would like to have Turgut's view before taking
>any king of positon or action on this.
This is the last I heard from EARN on this topic. I decided to perform
the split when, while cleaning my mailbox, I stumbled upon the note I
have just quoted. It reminded me that I had to do that split before
EARN'90, and that EARN was just trying to delay that as much as possible
(after all, 1 month is plenty of time to discuss the pro's and con's and
give me a "final" opinion on the split - even though I might not agree to
it, I would at least know the opinion of EARN and we could have discussed
the implementation).
>He split the list at a very untimely moment, since I am at the EARN
>office in Paris, thus unable to do list maintenance (you have to be at
>the right userid@nodeid for it) until Monday afternoon.
I had personally expected EARN to choose FRMOP11 rather than TREARN in
order to avoid disruption of service when the line to Turkey is down, or
when the queues are such that it takes days for files to get through. If
you create the list on monday, there will have been only 1 working day of
interruption. You could probably get it done at FRMOP11 today. In any
case you can REVIEW the list from any userid to get the list of
recipients; I won't send it to you because people are subscribing to it,
and it might change until monday.
>I'd like to stress that it IS a good idea to split the list
I'm glad that you agree with me, but I think it's a pity that I'm
learning it only now. I was under the definite impression that EARN
wanted to avoid this split at all cost.
Eric
|