First, I (and  I'm sure a lot  of other people) would be  grateful if you
didn't quote whole messages in your reply.
 
>It seems to me that one important requirement has been omitted from this
>list. EARN sites  who wish to run the supported  LISTSERV at its current
>supported version should not be excluded from doing so.
 
Provision for this has been included in the "survey" version of the plan.
 
>I have to say that I  would find it inappropriate and objectionable that
>someone, whilst  availing of the  EARN infrastructure to develop  and to
>distribute any  code, should  then even consider  refusing to  make that
>code available within EARN.
 
I am  OUTRAGED at this comment,  which clearly shows that  the person who
wrote it  did not read the  proposal carefully enough. Let  me repeat for
the 50000th time  that, at the beginning (ie before  EARN makes its first
change to it), LISTEARN == LISTSERV (same thing, la meme chose, la stessa
cosa, la misma cosa, sorry but I  don't know how to say that in Chinese).
I am NOT  removing the code from  you, I am merely changing  the name and
handing its maintenance to EARN. If  you wish to keep running the present
version of LISTSERV, no problem: just convert it to LISTEARN (which means
only a change in the name that appears  on help files et al), and then do
not take any update  from EARN. If you wish to run  the LISTSERV that *I*
will keep working on during my spare time, then you are requesting that a
fraction of my  volunteer time be devoted  to you, and I find  it hard to
believe that you find it unacceptable that I could refuse that.
 
As a  final note, I would  like to say that  it is comments like  the one
Niall just  made that led  me to decide  that, however the  "LISTSERV and
EARN" conflict  is going to  get solved, EARN  will have to  find someone
else for the maintenance of its copy of LISTSERV.
 
  Eric