Well, wanted to reply to the first one all the time ... sorry that it is so long and please note the number of ">"'s on the left. I placed my comments on the bottom. On Wed, 15 Nov 89 16:51:25 GMT Eric Thomas said: >For your information /Eric >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >On Wed, 15 Nov 89 16:12:46 GMT Eric Thomas said: >>> Comment: The directive has been voted on by the BoD. >>Does that mean that the BoD has approved the directive, and, if so, could >>you please post the exact text and implementation deadline here? >> >This meens that the adopted text is the one included in the NOG minutes: > > "EARN listserver backbone sites are required to have > signed a LISTEARN agreement no later than 1 January > 1990." >Turgut is following up on the implementation. >Regards, >Alain On Fri, 24 Nov 89 10:25:08 TUR Turgut Kalfaoglu said: >On Tue, 21 Nov 89 17:43:59 EDT Alain Auroux said: >>I really think we should promote LISTEARN agressively. >>Are you in a position to send development plans of LISTEARN on this list, and >>to start any other action to improve the visibility of LISTEARN? > >I started doing some 'agressive' improvements on listearn ..... >>I plan to address the problem during the next EXEC, but to do that, I need >>an action plan: any idea? >well, I am better at coding then talking :) >>May be you can widely advertise the NOG decision (saying that it is >>a technical decision, not a political one) on all LISTXXX lists, and to give >>more information on the LISTEARN developmment, to give confidence to LISTSERV >>users, and incite them to move to LISTEARN. > >I think we need time.. > >>Part of the problem is that: >>1. They know Eric well, but they don't yet know you xell enough. >>2. Eric is moving ahead with new versions, beta test sites, etc... >> I think you should a bit formalize your work, call LISTSERV 1.5o >> LISTEARN 1.0 and announce/distribute new versions more formally. > >sounds fine. I am just waiting for this DIST business.. It works >well here, but I am not sure that it will work all the time. >Regards, -turgut Let's start with the BoD directive: <quote> EARN listserver backbone sites ... <equote> I'm still trying to figure out what that is to mean. What exactly is an EARN listserver backbone site ? A few possible interpretations: 1) A site running LISTEARN - well, in this case it would mean that sites are running LISTEARN while still having Eric's license, don't think that this is true. 2) An EARN site running LISTSERV code (LISTSERV or LISTEARN) - if you see it this way the clear meaning (if it's a technical decision then it should have a clear meaning) is: it is not permitted that an EARN site is running Eric's LISTSERV - I can't rule this out completely. 3) An EARN site running as backbone server must run LISTEARN. Now we have to take a closer look at the term "backbone". * Under the assumption that there is an agreement between BITNET/NetNorth and EARN on the LISTxxxx backbone this would be equivalent to point 2 above. * Seeing two (still connected but functionally different) backbones it would not say much. But the word "required" implies some kind of action in case of violations. Then - what are the consequences? Is the site forced off EARN? Is it removed from EARN's tables? Or is this taken as occasion to split the backbones? * Or is the hidden meaning of the directive that the BITNET/NetNorth LISTSERV backbone may not extend into EARN? As I said several weeks ago that should be clearly stated. What I don't understand is that a) the directive was passed to the EARN-NOG members (one to two per country) which (should have) told the LISTSERV maintainers in their country about it. Why the h*** is it obviously not possible to write to the maintainers directly ??? There are lists for that, and if someone doesn't find one - well it's easy to find out the maintainers. b) Once more with all the decisions - why are we only onformed of the fact and the text? It would be easier and more widely accepted as technical decision if someone could give the REASONS. Instead of saying >>May be you can widely advertise the NOG decision (saying that it is >>a technical decision, not a political one) on all LISTXXX lists, and to give >>more information on the LISTEARN developmment, to give confidence to LISTSERV it would be better to name the reasons. Or are we (LISTSERV maintainers) that stupid and inapt that we have to be treated like sucklings - "you wouldn't understand any reason I could tell you but believe me, when I tell you it's technical then it is technical". That is DEFINITELY NOT the course of action to give confidence ... c) Why the promotion if that's a directive. It sounds like "we have decided now Turgut has to find a way to enforce it". So Turgut is the scapegoat if sites refuse to conform to the directive - insofar that he hasn't done enough advertising or hasn't writte attractive code ?? After all the flames some (hopefully) constructive and more technical notes. * About bug fixes: remember that the 1.6+ sites have several bugs that were in 1.5o fixed. Other 1.5o sites may not have encountered the bugs (or are unaware, which is just the same). * Improvements: similar to the above - and Turgut has somewhat limited possibilities. He must be careful not to break communications with the LISTSERV (read ^LISTEARN) sites. If something breaks I think he would be burnt to cinders by the same people who encourage him to make improvements. * As long as Turgut doesn't have a reliable testing environment (read beta sites he can't perform excessive tests. Several of the eligible sites have opted for 1.6, one of the reasons being the unclear state of the LISTEARN - this has been said weeks ago. Instead of taking appropriate actions and provide the sought for information, EARN management releases somewhat cryptic directives every some weeks. Speaking for myself I'm near the point of being totally fed up with the whole story. It was not before weeks after Eric's deadline that the contract was signed by EARN. It took again weeks after Eric's offer of 1.6 that some kinda statement came (at least to us poor ordinary people) from EARN - and read, as you may no, that EARN sites should "not be encouraged" to take 1.6. In the light of this we signed the 1.6 contract on Sep. 27th --- only to hear about the directive on Oct. 16th. I bet it will take again several weeks until I get an answer to my questions about the background of the directive and the consequences of a "violation". I can as well take a deep breath and sit back and wait what's to come. And well, nobody can force me to run LISTSERV or LISTEARN at all. Our site is understaffed and this is the only full function LISTSERV in Austria - so CEARN will have the work in the future. And even if the BoD comes out with a directive that there has to be at least one LISTEARN in every country it will not be our site which has to run it. It's as simple as that. Christian