Here is an except from the minutes of the last EARN Network Operations
Group meeting which I am afraid I simply cannot let pass.
> It was noted that certain EARN sites have been removed from the
> BITNET version of PEERS NAMES, and that this was causing
> problems.
>
> It was agreed that an agreement was necessary with BITNET over
> responsibility for defining the backbone status of EARN list-
> servers in the BITNET version of PEERS NAMES. It was decided to
> recommend to the EARN Exec that the following text be
> communicated to BITNET and that BITNET be asked for a response.
>
> Listservers in use are in use on both networks whose
> operation is governed by certain data files (PEERS NAMES
> and LINKSWT FILE). These data files are currently being
> maintained by two persons, of whom one takes
> responsibility for servers within EARN, and the other
> takes responsibility for the servers on the other
> networks.
>
> It is important that these data files are kept in close
> synchronization in order to avoid disruption of service
> and imposition of unnecessary remedial work on tghe
> personnel at server sites.
>
> EARN wishes therefore to conclude an agreement with
> BITNET to co-ordinate update of these files and to
> establish appropriate assignment of responsibilities for
> the data representing our respective networks.
I take offense at the following statement, which is completely erroneous:
> It was noted that certain EARN sites have been removed from the
> BITNET version of PEERS NAMES, and that this was causing
> problems.
Either this information was brought to the NOG as it is written here, in
which case we have a serious communication problem, or it was
misunderstood by the person who wrote the minutes (and, given that Niall
is quite knowledgeable about LISTSERV, it probably means it was
misunderstood by a majority).
No EARN site has been removed from the "BITNET version" of PEERS NAMES.
Three EARN sites (IRLEARN, UKACRL and ICNUCEVM) have been removed from
the LISTSERV backbone, because they had not been updating their tables in
the past 5 months. I would like to remind you that keeping tables up to
date is an explicit requirement for backbone sites, and I don't think I
need to bore you with the technical details of why it is so important.
Backbone sites running with tables or a version of LISTSERV older than 1
month, without a good reason (eg this or that version doesn't work
because of a bug in our level of VM), can be removed from the backbone
without any further justification. In this respect, 5 months is quite a
laxist margin, in my opinion.
The truth is that the fact that these servers were on the backbone with
very old tables was causing daily problems in the distribution of mail (a
lot of files got distributed by direct send from the servers in question,
thus nullifying the advantages of DISTRIBUTE, and hundreds of junk mail a
week were sent to LISTSERV coordination). For these reasons, and after
not having answered a warning sent 1 week in advance nor having taken any
corrective action to refresh this tables or authorize Turgut to do so,
these sites were removed from the backbone to solve the problems I have
mentioned. If this removal has caused any problem, these were purely
POLITICAL problems, not technical ones (or then I would like to hear more
about them).
Shortly thereafter, I have received a note from Dermot O'Beirne from UCD
(IRLEARN) explaining that, having been made responsible for EARN at UCD
all of a sudden, it had taken him time to understand the day-to-day
realities of EARN operations, and LISTSERV in particular. He assured me
that he would keep the tables updated in the future, and I put him back
immediately on the backbone, after checking that he had indeed updated
his tables. Please note that IRLEARN is not a site the management of
which I would say I like particularly - so much for people who have
insinuated that this removal was a personal revenge on the IRLEARN folks.
Now, I have heard that our Italian colleagues have been quite a bit
vociferous in their complaints at the NOG, even though they did not deem
it useful to let me know about their unhappiness (and for this reason I
apologize for having to quote second-hand sources of information). They
seem however to be much faster at complaining than at taking corrective
action, since yesterday they were still running these 5-months-old
tables, which apparently have been updated today.
To conclude on this sad story, I am very disappointed at the way the NOG
has dealt with this issue. I see an erroneous statement in the minutes,
followed by a plan for action at the political level to try to "bypass"
me for the update of PEERS NAMES, and a further insinuation that my
course of action is imposing unnecessary work at the sites housing the
servers, which basically means that, by refusing to keep sites with
outdated tables on the backbone, I am forcing the staff of these sites to
perform the unnecessary work of updating these tables. I hear rumours of
strong complaints about this technically-inspired decision, but, apart
from IRLEARN, I do not see any attempt at correcting the problem and
asking to be put back on the backbone.
Surely the NOG realizes that this kind of attitude is not very
productive, and is not of the sort that leads to better cooperation
between the two parties (especially as I have not been offered the
opportunity to defend myself, even via electronic mail). I am now
strongly tempted to cease any technical cooperation regarding the
LISTGATE project, and to stop wasting my time on maintaining
compatibility with LISTEARN (which cost me 1h of time last week). I will
wait until tomorrow to make sure my decision on this respect is not
emotional, and I will then let you know what I have decided.
Eric
|
