Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!PUCC!MAINTCMS
From: MAINTCMS@PUCC.BITNET (John Wagner)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l
Subject: Re: Policy on Sites Leaving BITNET
Message-ID: <POLICY-L%90022813545350@BITNIC.BITNET>
Date: 28 Feb 90 18:21:58 GMT
Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Lines: 42
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM.BITNET Gateway
In-Reply-To:  Message of Wed, 28 Feb 90 11:10:50 EST from <MWH@IVORY>

On Wed, 28 Feb 90 11:10:50 EST Michael Hrybyk said:
>First, John, as you know, I dropped the ball on MAILR2 INFO not
>being posted to LISTSERV. I placed it on LISTSERV today, and updated
>COLUMBIA MAILER as well.

I thought about replying to this in private, but I decided that this
really is a policy issue in my mind, thus this public response.  I
belive we are where we are because there hasn't been an open
discussion (and consensus formed) on what BITNIC should be.

Mike, I explicitly did not include your name in the reference to the
file not making it onto LISTSERV because I don't see you as the
problem.  The problem is one of emphasis.  The "employees" (most
visibly you and Andy) are simply implementing policy set above you.
It has been obvious that the emphasis is on technical operation and
not information services.  This is not a new phenomena, it has been a
BITNIC trend for several years.

I feel, that it has also has been obvious the membership has been
complaining about the lack of information services orientation.  As an
example look at the TECHREP list.  The fact that this list is out of
date (due to the node entries being bad) is not a recent occurance.
The recent commitment to getting it back in synch is just that;
recent (but also very welcome).  But should we have had to wait so
long?

This also opens other interesting questions.  BITNIC has claimed to
own the job of keeping membership data (and I assume that includes
keeping it current).  I don't envy you folks having to call all the
sites you know are wrong in order to get their data up to date, but
the fact that there are atleast 120 known discrepencies leads one to
wonder how many other values are wrong, but just happen to agree with
the in-house data.

Mike, I want to emphasize that I am not picking on you or Andy.  I
believe you both are doing what BITNIC management has defined as your
jobs.  My quibble is with the management selected direction.  I
believe that direction needs to be discussed by the membership and a
consensus reached on what services we want BITNIC to provide.  That
consensus should then be implemented by Board action.

   John Wagner