Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!BITNIC!CONKLIN
From: CONKLIN@BITNIC.BITNET (Jim Conklin)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Subject: Re: BITNET Restructuring Proposal
Message-ID: <NODMGT-L%90021213450096@BITNIC.BITNET>
Date: 12 Feb 90 18:43:05 GMT
Sender: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Lines: 26
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Fri, 9 Feb 90 12:49:50 CST

>On Fri, 9 Feb 90 11:09:22 EST Michael R. Gettes said:
>......
>......
>>So, in short, the decisions on who should participate in the core
>>were based on network load, development and compatibility.
>>I hope this clarifies things a little better.
>>
>>/mrg
>
>I'm sure Michael MEANT to say "... the decisions on who to RECOMMEND as
>core sites were based...."
>
>I sure would have felt better about this if it had come from the CREN
>board.  Why haven't we heard from them on this.  Why is PUCC making
>recommendations about reorganizing BITNET.  Is there some relationship
>between PUCC and the VMNET developers and the CREN board/BITNET
>management that we don't know about?  Am I the only one uncomfortable
>with what I've been reading here?  I can't even put my finger on WHY I'm
>uncomfortable, something just doesn't SEEM right.
>
>John/

The CREN Board reviewed the proposal, and its Technical Committee recommended
that a broad discussion was needed in order that it might benefit from the
wisdom of the network.  Hence the discussion in which you are participating!
                                             Jim