First login?
Lost password?
 
 
cellml-discussion AT lists.cellml.org 
CellML Discussion List

Text archives Help


[cellml-discussion] [team-cellml] @cellml.org addresses


Chronological Thread 
  • From: matt.halstead at auckland.ac.nz (Matt )
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] [team-cellml] @cellml.org addresses
  • Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:52:09 +1200
This seems like it's going in circles. I'm not really sure why anyone
would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
send to the list. Thinking about this more we should probably try:

1) cellml-discussion at cellml.org

2) team at cellml.org - for specific enquiries that you don't want
publicly available. It would make sense to have a nominated person or
persons that address mail in there - James I would think - who decides
if an email should be forwarded to the list because it really is a
public issue - or respond and acknowledge the email and seek a
response from those in the team that it seems appropriate to.

3) a team page where everyone who is on the team-cellml list has a
picture and a small blurb (kind of like http://sbml.org/contacts/) ...
which is really just to give a face to those who are quite deeply
involved. I would imagine people like Penny Noble to be on that. If
someone contacts someone on that page then it will likely be quite
personal.

On 6/25/07, Andrew Miller <ak.miller at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> David Brooks wrote:
> > See below...
> >
> > On 25/06/2007 4:32 p.m., Andrew Miller wrote:
> >> James Lawson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Andrew Miller wrote:
> >>>
> >> I don't think we should use the word 'project team' because there is no
> >> formal project team. Perhaps we can just have a list of people
> >> categorised by their interest in the CellML project, and then a contact
> >> page which helps people find certain people (for example, we could have
> >> a category for technical issues with cellml.org, which would list Tommy,
> >> a category for people with the ability to curate cardiac
> >> electrophysiology models, which would list James, and a category for
> >> people with an interest in cardiac electrophysiological modelling, which
> >> would list anyone who wanted to be on the list).
> >>
> >>> There is then the issue of whether we use our own email
> >>> addresses or @cellml.org addresses. Andre is keen on the latter, and I
> >>> agree.
> >>>
> >> Although I am not entirely convinced that it is necessary or beneficial,
> >> and I think that we risk harming the community nature of CellML by
> >> saying that only certain people can get a cellml.org e-mail address.
> >>
> >>
> > Surely there's no harm in having a small number of generic @cellml.org
> > email addresses that reflect the roles people play? (eg
> > webmaster at cellml.org, curator at cellml.org, info at cellml.org). I
> > don't
> > think it's a good idea to have lots of these addresses (as this can
> > get confusing), nor should the roles be too specialised.
> We have tried this in the past, and it resulted in the fragmentation of
> the community, and it had several negative outcomes:
> 1) People were sending all messages of a given type to the aliases,
> instead of to the list. However, because these aliases were closed
> mailing lists with generally out of date membership, mails sent to the
> lists were essentially getting forgotten about when there were people on
> the main list who could have answered the message.
> 2) There was no archive so there was no way to tell if a question was
> answered.
> 3) People often referred to e-mails sent to these lists at the CellML
> meetings, but it was hard to tell what they were talking about because
> only some people at the meeting got the messages.
> 4) Because the aliases were open, they got a lot of spam, which made it
> hard to see the signal over the noise.
> 5) Because the traffic was fragmented, it looked to anyone looking at
> the cellml-discussion archives like there was nothing happening with the
> CellML project.
>
> As a result of this, we decided over a year ago to get rid of info,
> tools and other lists like that and consolidate them all into
> cellml-discussion. I don't really think we want to go back to the way it
> was before without addressing all the problems it caused last time.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dave
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cellml-discussion mailing list
> > cellml-discussion at cellml.org
> > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page