Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!!PROGRAMMER
From: SYSBJAV@VM.TCS.TULANE.EDU (John Voigt - Academic Systems Programmer)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.nodmgt-l
Subject: Re: BITNET Restructuring Proposal
Message-ID: <NODMGT-L%90020914030390@BITNIC.BITNET>
Date: 9 Feb 90 18:49:50 GMT
Sender: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC>
Lines: 21
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway
Comments: To: Node Management Discussion <NODMGT-L@BITNIC.BITNET>,
              bitnet-2@VM.TCS.TULANE.EDU
In-Reply-To:  Message of Fri, 9 Feb 90 11:09:22 EST from <GETTES@PUCC>

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/