Some notes about the LISTSERV/LISTEARN split:
* It's supposedly clear that EARN and BitNet should separate some day.
However, we don't even have the slightiest indication of when this day could
be. We don't even know what are the full OSI migration plans for EARN, and
then we don't know what does the BoD mean when they say that they will
'preserve the NJE service', or how much time this will last. We know
absolutely nothing about the future of EARN. I'm much better informed about
the future of BITNET than about the future of EARN or of EARN-Germany, for
example.
I'm therefore not sure it's the same to split LISTSERV now because anyway
the networks will be split soon. "Soon" could be in five years, or never, as
far as I can see.
And as an EARN postmaster, I would hate to see LISTSERV split in two
separate backbones (for technical reasons), as much as I would hate to see
LISTSERV (or LISTEARN) supported by someone different from Eric.
* Said that, one can ask: why are we offered now to vote about such a split?
It's obvious: because EARN is making so much noise about the embargo and
about their moral rights to have LISTSERV unrestricted and free of charge
that Eric is spending more time discussing with EARN that in anything else.
Now why has the embargo been applied? Because of a number of reasons,
including the fact that Eric's paper (and also mine, for that matter) passed
directly from the last EARNTECH meeting to the trash as soon as it took
contact with the EARN BoD. Eric's paper presented a number of problems of
the current EARN and proposed some solutions, and was approved (with some
amendments) by the vast majority of the Technical Group. Since the BoD
refused even to address it, it's clear that the current BoD is a danger to
EARN.
Therefore we have to vote on a solution which is technically unsatisfactory
as a result of the complete inadequacy of the current EARN management. If I
had to choose between belonging to the abstract entity called EARN (assuming
that I could be still connected to the network, maybe under another name)
and having LISTSERV instead of LISTEARN, I for sure would choose LISTSERV. I
am not getting any benefit from belonging to EARN -- only problems, most of
them created by the politicians who are mismanaging it.
All the preceding is to express how I would like that we could find some
other solution that would not technically hurt the present network.
* Assuming that Eric's proposal is succesful, I'd pay to get LISTSERV instead
of LISTEARN. EARN has *some* money to pay for development and maintenance,
but they don't even know what are the tasks they should assign to these
people. This is why they didn't still contract anyone, even if there is some
(limited) budget assigned for that this year.
And given the continuous battles and differences between EARN countries,
major problems can be expected with the LISTEARN software as soon as it is
touched by EARN. This without considering that it's almost impossible that
they can find a programmer like Eric for the salary and stability they can
offer.
I just came back after a quite nasty influenza, and my thoughts are not very
clear today -- you'll have to excuse any reiteration or obscurity in my mail.
But I felt unable to stay silent in view of what's going on.
Jose Maria
|