On Fri, 24 Nov 89 10:33:31 SET you said:
>
>Let's start with the BoD directive:
><quote> EARN listserver backbone sites ... <equote>
>I'm still trying to figure out what that is to mean. What exactly is an EARN
>listserver backbone site ? A few possible interpretations:
>1) A site running LISTEARN - well, in this case it would mean that sites are
> running LISTEARN while still having Eric's license, don't think that this
> is true.
Does not mean that.
>2) An EARN site running LISTSERV code (LISTSERV or LISTEARN) - if you see it
> this way the clear meaning (if it's a technical decision then it should
> have a clear meaning) is: it is not permitted that an EARN site is running
> Eric's LISTSERV - I can't rule this out completely.
Does not mean that.
>3) An EARN site running as backbone server must run LISTEARN. ..............
This is the right interpretation.
If such a site does not implement the directive, the BoD will have to decide
if sanctions must be taken, and which sanctions.
This obviously cannot be to force it off EARN, nor removing it from EARN's
tables. It might be (but this is just a personal guess) removing from the
LISTEARN backbone.
It is no hidden meaning of the directive: if one day the BoD wants to take
another decision, then another directive will have to be issued.
>..................
>What I don't understand is that
>....................
The reason for the NOG to propose the Listserver directive and for the BoD to
accept it is the following:
- When the NOG meeting took place, LISTEARN and LISTSERV were fully
compatible, but the NOG feared that it might not continue to be the case.
To cope with this, 2 actions were taken:
1. Develop a LISTEARN-LISTSERV gateway.
In fact, this was decided during the spring NOG meeting. Please refer
to the minutes of that meeting.
2. Propose the listserver directive, to make sure that at least EARN
listserver backbone sites run the same version of listserver, to avoid
problems of incompatibility between backbone servers.
> .......
> c) Why the promotion if that's a directive. It sounds like "we have decided
> now Turgut has to find a way to enforce it". So Turgut is the scapegoat if
> sites refuse to conform to the directive - ..................
Please, Christian, stop sending this type of statement.
Enforcing any directive is my responsibility (with Turgut's help in that
case).
In addition, I remind you that you are commenting on a private mail sent
by error to a list, thanks to the 'REPLY' command. I personally would feel
a bit uneasy to do that |
> ............................................ insofar that he hasn't done
> enough advertising or hasn't writte attractive code ??
>
Certainly, we have not advertised enough. Nothing to do with the quality of
the code, which has so far proven to be very good.
>After all the flames some (hopefully) constructive abd mote technical notes.
>
Thank you
>...................................................................... In the
>light of this we signed the 1.6 contract on Sep. 27th --- only to hear about
>the directive on Oct. 16th.
The draft directive was drafted and adopted by the NOG on October 6th
It was proposed to and adopted by the BoD on Oct. 19th.
>I bet it will take again several weeks until I get an answer to my questions
>about the background of the directive and the consequences of a "violation"...
You lost| I took just a week-end.
>.................................................................... And well,
>nobody can force me to run LISTSERV or LISTEARN at all.............
Quite true|
>
>Christian
Alain Auroux
|
