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: j.lawson at auckland.ac.nz (James Lawson)
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] [team-cellml] @cellml.org addresses
  • Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:47:15 +1200
Matt wrote:
> 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.

Wasn't this originally your suggestion?

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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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