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