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