Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!EDUCOM!MWH
From: mwh@EDUCOM.EDU (Michael Hrybyk)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l
Subject: Re: Policy on Sites Leaving BITNET
Message-ID: <9002281952.AA25489@educom.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 90 19:52:23 GMT
Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC>
Lines: 55
Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM.BITNET Gateway
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL0]
Comments: To: POLICY-L%BITNIC@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
In-Reply-To:  ; from "John Wagner" at Feb 28, 90 1:21 pm

> 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.

Our goal is to provide accurate data for use within the net. Secondly,
and not less important, is to provide user (ie, representatives) support.
That support may be answering phone/mail questions, providing mailing
lists, and other services known or yet to be defined. In trying to
achieve these goals, operational practices (sometimes embodied
in software) need to be defined.

I believe that this is what the board sees as our objectives as well,
but I can't finger concrete statements at the moment.

>
> 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?

I sympathize. The time frame for getting correct data should always
approach zero (we needed that yesterday!). We're trying to implement
procedures to keep the data clean (input checking, annual or semi-annual
reviews and/or "re-nominations", ...). We're open to your ideas and
suggestions.

> ...  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.
>

We've considered that. We will probably follow up the phone calls
with an electronic mailing of techrep/inforep nomination forms
to all birreps, as part of an annual review procedure.

> 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.
>

Andy and I have developed a thick skin over the months, much as you
do when your campus users flame regarding services (what, they don't??).

I would welcome a discussion on services the membership wanted from BITNIC.

Mike Hrybyk
BITNIC