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