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 10:15:33 +1200
Matt wrote:
> This seems like it's going in circles.

Agreed :)

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.
>

I'm not sure I quite get you here. Would you mind clarifying this a bit
please?

Just a couple of points to think about...

This is speculation, but I think that some people may feel more
comfortable sending an email if they know it isn't going to a list. This
might not be necessarily rational, but particularly if the person is a
masters, honours or undergrad student they may not want to 'bug' a whole
lot of 'important, busy people.' Am I coming across? In any case, I
think this situation would be relatively rare, but should be catered for.

In response to your comment Andrew that if someone doesn't want their
query publicly available so as to help other people, then should we
really be investing resources in helping them... My feeling is that all
we'd really need to do is suggest this to them and they should see it
our way.

Also, if someone wants to complain to a specific person, how transparent
to the public do we want this? What if someone points out a significant
security flaw that might take a while to fix? This is something we
definitely want to hear about in at least team-cellml if not a private
address. We do already have the webmaster address for this, however.
____________________________________________________________________

> 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.

Yep, Peter is keen on this. Can you think of anyone else who is
similarly involved? He's asked me to organise this, so I may as well
start now by sending out an email to the team-cellml list (separate to
this thread,) then we can add people as we see fit. To start off, I'll
put up people's blurbs, their photos (most of them I can probably get
off Gareth for the ABI people,) and links to the team-cellml and
cellml-discussion lists. We then have to decide on what we are going to
tell users about how to use these lists.
_______________________________________________________________________

On a related note, perhaps we could link this to the 'related
efforts'/'software and groups using cellml' page. We could contact them
and ask them if they want to increase their presence on the community
part of the cellml site. I envision this as an extension to the
community help side of this issue, so that people can use cellml.org as
a one-stop source for everything cellml, including domain specific
experts who are using cellml to code up their models, and people who are
using the API for development etc.



>
> 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.

Surely the people who create CellML and the repository are the 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).
>>>>

I like this idea, and have elaborated on it above.

>>>>> 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.
>>>>

and of course these email addresses would get heavily spammed.

>>>>
>>> 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.
>>

agreed

>> 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