Christian,  in private  messages to  a few  of the  attendees of  the NOG
meeting I have already expressed my  surprise about the ambiguity of that
directive. If  I were a  BoD member  I would systematically  vote against
anything whose wording is that ambiguous, and demand that it be re-issued
with a decently clear wording, but fortunately I am not a BoD member.
 
Anyway  I asked  the  people  in question  how  they  had understood  the
directive, based on what  was said during the meeting. I  did not want an
official answer  from Alain Auroux,  but rather, I  wanted to see  if the
meaning was  clear to  at least  a few  of the  people who  proposed this
directive  to the  BoD. The  result of  this (absolutely  non-scientific)
little "survey" is  that, apparently, it was "more or  less" clear; I got
answers saying  "I thought it was  only a recommendation!", but  it seems
that what the directive was supposed to mean is either:
 
1. "All EARN sites running a  :backbone.YES LISTSERV must have signed the
   LISTEARN  agreement  no later  than  1-Jan-90;  they  do not  have  to
   actually *run* that software, but they must have signed the contract".
 
2. "All  'backbone' EARN sites  (ie those with international  lines, etc)
   running LISTSERV must have signed the LISTEARN agreement no later than
   1-Jan-90; they do  not have to actually *run* that  software, but they
   must have signed the contract".
 
The directive is obviously irrelevant to LISTEARN sites, who have already
signed  the  contract.  It  was  clear  from  everybody  that  there  was
absolutely no obligation to run the software, only to sign the contract.
 
Personally,  I  find  it  absolutely  unacceptable  that  a  professional
organization with the kind of formal  structure that EARN has might issue
directives whose wording is such that, even among the people who proposed
it, there are  nonzero doubts as to what exactly  the approved text means
(and the difference between 1 and 2  is not merely rethorics!). If I were
an EARN  site director unwilling  to sign  the LISTEARN contract  for any
reason, I would  play EARN's game and choose the  interpretation (1 or 2)
that I prefer, saying that this is the way I understand the directive and
that it  therefore does not  apply to me; EARN  would then, at  least, be
forced to come up with a new, unambiguous directive.
 
  Eric