Well, wanted to reply to the first one all the time ... sorry that it is so
long and please note the number of ">"'s on the left. I placed my comments on
the bottom.
On Wed, 15 Nov 89 16:51:25 GMT Eric Thomas said:
>For your information /Eric
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>On Wed, 15 Nov 89 16:12:46 GMT Eric Thomas said:
>>> Comment: The directive has been voted on by the BoD.
>>Does that mean that the BoD has approved the directive, and, if so, could
>>you please post the exact text and implementation deadline here?
>>
>This meens that the adopted text is the one included in the NOG minutes:
>
> "EARN listserver backbone sites are required to have
> signed a LISTEARN agreement no later than 1 January
> 1990."
>Turgut is following up on the implementation.
>Regards,
>Alain
On Fri, 24 Nov 89 10:25:08 TUR Turgut Kalfaoglu said:
>On Tue, 21 Nov 89 17:43:59 EDT Alain Auroux said:
>>I really think we should promote LISTEARN agressively.
>>Are you in a position to send development plans of LISTEARN on this list, and
>>to start any other action to improve the visibility of LISTEARN?
>
>I started doing some 'agressive' improvements on listearn .....
>>I plan to address the problem during the next EXEC, but to do that, I need
>>an action plan: any idea?
>well, I am better at coding then talking :)
>>May be you can widely advertise the NOG decision (saying that it is
>>a technical decision, not a political one) on all LISTXXX lists, and to give
>>more information on the LISTEARN developmment, to give confidence to LISTSERV
>>users, and incite them to move to LISTEARN.
>
>I think we need time..
>
>>Part of the problem is that:
>>1. They know Eric well, but they don't yet know you xell enough.
>>2. Eric is moving ahead with new versions, beta test sites, etc...
>> I think you should a bit formalize your work, call LISTSERV 1.5o
>> LISTEARN 1.0 and announce/distribute new versions more formally.
>
>sounds fine. I am just waiting for this DIST business.. It works
>well here, but I am not sure that it will work all the time.
>Regards, -turgut
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.
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.
3) An EARN site running as backbone server must run LISTEARN. Now we have to
take a closer look at the term "backbone".
* Under the assumption that there is an agreement between BITNET/NetNorth
and EARN on the LISTxxxx backbone this would be equivalent to point 2
above.
* Seeing two (still connected but functionally different) backbones it
would not say much. But the word "required" implies some kind of action in
case of violations. Then - what are the consequences? Is the site forced
off EARN? Is it removed from EARN's tables? Or is this taken as occasion to
split the backbones?
* Or is the hidden meaning of the directive that the BITNET/NetNorth
LISTSERV backbone may not extend into EARN? As I said several weeks ago
that should be clearly stated.
What I don't understand is that
a) the directive was passed to the EARN-NOG members (one to two per country)
which (should have) told the LISTSERV maintainers in their country about
it. Why the h*** is it obviously not possible to write to the maintainers
directly ??? There are lists for that, and if someone doesn't find one -
well it's easy to find out the maintainers.
b) Once more with all the decisions - why are we only onformed of the fact
and the text? It would be easier and more widely accepted as technical
decision if someone could give the REASONS. Instead of saying
>>May be you can widely advertise the NOG decision (saying that it is
>>a technical decision, not a political one) on all LISTXXX lists, and to give
>>more information on the LISTEARN developmment, to give confidence to LISTSERV
it would be better to name the reasons. Or are we (LISTSERV maintainers)
that stupid and inapt that we have to be treated like sucklings - "you
wouldn't understand any reason I could tell you but believe me, when I
tell you it's technical then it is technical".
That is DEFINITELY NOT the course of action to give confidence ...
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 - insofar that he hasn't done
enough advertising or hasn't writte attractive code ??
After all the flames some (hopefully) constructive and more technical notes.
* About bug fixes: remember that the 1.6+ sites have several bugs that were in
1.5o fixed. Other 1.5o sites may not have encountered the bugs (or are
unaware, which is just the same).
* Improvements: similar to the above - and Turgut has somewhat limited
possibilities. He must be careful not to break communications with the
LISTSERV (read ^LISTEARN) sites. If something breaks I think he would be
burnt to cinders by the same people who encourage him to make improvements.
* As long as Turgut doesn't have a reliable testing environment (read beta
sites he can't perform excessive tests. Several of the eligible sites have
opted for 1.6, one of the reasons being the unclear state of the LISTEARN -
this has been said weeks ago. Instead of taking appropriate actions and
provide the sought for information, EARN management releases somewhat
cryptic directives every some weeks.
Speaking for myself I'm near the point of being totally fed up with the whole
story. It was not before weeks after Eric's deadline that the contract was
signed by EARN. It took again weeks after Eric's offer of 1.6 that some kinda
statement came (at least to us poor ordinary people) from EARN - and read, as
you may no, that EARN sites should "not be encouraged" to take 1.6. In the
light of this we signed the 1.6 contract on Sep. 27th --- only to hear about
the directive on Oct. 16th.
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". I
can as well take a deep breath and sit back and wait what's to come. And well,
nobody can force me to run LISTSERV or LISTEARN at all. Our site is
understaffed and this is the only full function LISTSERV in Austria - so CEARN
will have the work in the future. And even if the BoD comes out with a
directive that there has to be at least one LISTEARN in every country it will
not be our site which has to run it. It's as simple as that.
Christian
|