This note is being sent to all the EARN LISTSERV maintainers, with a copy to
LSTSRV-L.
I am now making a quick survey to see how many EARN sites are actually
interested in getting 1.6 under the conditions described in the enclosed note
from me, and despite the position of the EARN Executive explained in the
enclosed note from Frode Greisen. The purpose of the survey is for me to
decide whether or not it is worthwhile to pursue the issue any further -
clearly, if only 2 sites are interested, it's not worth it.
I am now asking all the EARN LISTSERV maintainers to do 'TELL LISTSERV AT
LEPICS /EARNV16 x', where 'x' is 'YES' if you would be interested in getting
1.6 under the conditions described below AND you think your management would
agree to this, 'NO' if it's the opposite, or '?' if you don't know. If you
have any additional comment, just mail it to me.
Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 89 18:47:45 GMT
From: Eric Thomas <ERIC@LEPICS>
Subject: A proposal to avoid the LISTSERV split
This is a quick note written at the end of a long day of work to try to
summarize the private discussions and resulting proposals I've had over the
last few days. First I'd like to tell the BoD members who're not interested
that they should complain to their Exec until a DEAR-EXEC list is created, so
that I don't have to waste the time of 25 people when I want to reach 7 (I
refuse to make a private nickname for the Exec, this is not a solution).
I have accepted the idea that, since I am in conflict with the EARN management
rather than with the EARN sites, I could accept to provide service and code
updates to selected EARN sites, provided that (1) this costs me an almost-zero
amount of time, and (2) it is clear that the agreement is between me and the
EARN site in question, which is asking for a FAVOUR of me and not DEMANDING
something that is RIGHTFULLY due to it. This service would mean:
1. Automatic update of the (non-copyrighted) PEERS NAMES and LINKSWT FILE by
yours truly, for the selected sites. This costs me 30 seconds per site,
once and for all.
2. Provision of (copyrighted) code updates, including release 1.6a and any
future release. This costs nothing is point 1 is done. 1+2 = the sites in
question can stay on the backbone.
3. Authorization for the selected sites to submit bug reports, and ONLY bug
reports, to me (questions to be sent to Turgut). This may cost a nonzero
amount of time, but if there are bugs they must be fixed and someone from
BITNET will eventually find them and report them, so the cost is in fact
very small. The development of the software will still be geared towards
the needs of BITNET whenever there is a conflict of interests (eg OSI vs
TCP/IP).
The conditions under which I would provide this service are:
A. The sites will have to sign a paper which basically puts in writing the "de
facto" conditions of service that BITNET sites are getting today, just so
that there can be no misunderstanding and no legal threats.
B. There will be no warranty of any kind, no commitment whatsoever from me.
This service can be discontinued at any time without warning, for all or
only some sites, or I can refuse to provide the service to some site if I
feel I have a reason to. That will be clearly written in the paper the site
signs anyway.
C. It should be made clear that sites which want to get maintenance from EARN
through the contract I signed with the EARN Association can do so freely:
the contract is valid forever, and nobody can prevent EARN from using it.
D. The service will be provided only as long as it costs me little or no extra
time.
Now, clause D means that I would not accept any harassment of any kind from
the BoD or Exec, no suggestion for signing new contracts, for getting paid for
this service in exchange of making commitments, no pressure of any kind, no
theological public debates about the Good or Evil of uncontrolled software
maintenance, no public exhortations to provide service to site XYZ because
they are nice people and really mean "we're awfully sorry, we really are" when
they say "how dare you complain about us", etc. It should be made very clear,
in particular, that I will not sign any contract with the EARN Association
which would allow them to distribute, maintain or modify the new versions of
LISTSERV through the central EARN support. Actually if there is ANY contract,
it will be between myself and the sites in question.
Because of the previous paragraph, I would like to hear the Exec's opinion on
the topic before I start anything.
Eric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 89 15:32:47 DNT
From: Frode Greisen <NEUFRODE@NEUVM1>
Subject: Listserv 1.6 in EARN
Dear Eric
I'm sorry it took some time to formally treat your proposal. At the
meeting in the Exec last Friday it was decided not to encourage EARN
sites to install LISTSERV 1.6 as proposed in your note of July 10.
The Exec finds that it is preferable to work for some time according
to the contract recently signed. I hope you will work with Turgut on
how best to treat the LISTSERV backbone.
Kind Regards
Frode Greisen
|
