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