SYSBJAV@VM.TCS.TULANE.EDU (John Voigt - Academic Systems Programmer) (03/01/90)
To Jim and the CREN board: Either retract the statements you made or have the board back them. I really cannot believe they reflect the feelings of the board and I damn sure know they do not reflect those of the membership. If BITNET dies due to membership lossage it will be partly due to statements like the ones you made. This is the most childish display I have ever seen from the BITNIC yet. I simply cannot believe you had the gall to post this. If you are trying to alienate the widest possible audience, you were surely successful. Can the board PLEASE respond to this? John/
MAINTCMS@PUCC.BITNET (John Wagner) (03/01/90)
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 The fact that this list is out of date (due to the node entries being bad) is not a recent occurance.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
mwh@EDUCOM.EDU (Michael Hrybyk) (03/01/90)
> 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