Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

David Nickerson wrote:
> Andrew Miller wrote:
>
>> David Nickerson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> I think this is an excessive response to a very minor problem. I very
>>> easily see this evolving into many separate and distinct local
>>> communities with little interaction.
>>>
>> The intention is that these lists only be used for messages like 'There
>> is a meeting on Level 6 at 10:00 am on Tuesday this week', or 'The
>> recently announced release can be run by on Linux by local users from
>> /people/blah/binaries/myprog', rather than significant CellML related
>> issues, and that is the goal of my guideline.
>>
>
> what is the benefit of a public archive of such messages?
>
1) It makes it much easier for people to refer back to what has happened
in the past, and makes it possible to search these messages using a
search engine.
2) It helps to stop people from using the list as a 'private' list
rather than a 'local' list, and so opens up the CellML community to new
participants a lot more. Obviously, we can't stop people having private
discussions if they want to do so, but providing a non-private forum for
local discussions will hopefully help everyone to get a better idea at
what other groups are doing.
3) It provides outsiders to a given local group the ability to search
other groups without being flooded.

>
>> I think that there are already very separate and distinct local
>> communities (we hardly ever hear from many of the communities who are
>> working on CellML), and the idea is that by acknowledging this and
>> providing an archived, open resource for local discussions with an
>> encouragement to send non-local messages to the more general list, we
>> can actively build stronger community interactions.
>>
>
> Perhaps some examples of these local communities you envision might
> help? The ones that I know about that you might be referring to are (and
> the groups involved):
>
> - The integration of CellML with JSim (Washington, Singapore, Auckland)
> - The use of the CellML API in non-Auckland based tools (Kyoto, Osaka,
> Oxford, Singapore, Auckland)
> - Model curation (the definition of level 4 curation) (Washington,
> Wisconsin, Oxford, Singapore, Auckland)
>
> and probably others that I can't recall. Not sure how your idea of local
> communities would address these, and given the effort I have put into
> getting these discussion on the cellml-discussion mailing list, with
> little success, I don't see anything changing in the future.
>
Don't forget the current local group (auckland@). I think that it is
important that if we are to increase the community participation of the
CellML project from outside of Auckland, we must move away from treating
the Auckland group as special, so if we set up an auckland@ list, we
really need to offer other groups the ability to do the same on equal
terms (even if they don't accept this offer).
>
>>> For the same reasons we removed the
>>> cellml-tools mailing list, I would very much like to see
>>> cellml-discussion remain as the only public forum for discussing CellML
>>> related issues, until such time as we decide that the list is being
>>> flooded with too many emails on one topic and we separate that topic off
>>> onto its own mailing list. I have yet to see any need for this.
>>>
>>>
>> Although a lot of messages currently get sent directly to interested
>> recipients to avoid flooding the list, and moving these onto a local
>> list would cause them to be archived.
>>
>
> as above, I'm not sure who your target is other than the Auckland group?
> and how you would get these personal discussions to take place on a
> publicly archived mailing list?
I presume most personal discussions take place because it would be
inappropriate to flood the main lists with them, rather than because
there is anything private about them. Hopefully, we can get these
discussions out into the public just by providing the facilities for
them to be archived.
> and if you can achieve this it would be
> much more beneficial to the community to have them moved onto the
> cellml-discussion list rather than a local one.
>
Unfortunately, the cellml-discussion list already gets so much traffic
that people are unsubscribing or are reluctant to subscribe.

Perhaps we won't need this proposal if we instead go for the tracker
based proposal.
>
>>> The idea of the team-cellml mailing list was for discussion amongst the
>>> original Auckland team on issues relating to the underlying functioning
>>> of the CellML project and a place to debate decisions when consensus
>>> could not be achieved amongst the wider CellML community.
>>> The
>>> auckland at cellml.org mailing list would not serve this purpose.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think that we need a separate mailing list for this, because
>> there is no need to tie decision making processes to the mailing list.
>>
>> The process for developing a given resource is ultimately determined by
>> whoever funds that resource, and the people who make the final decision
>> can do so on the basis of discussions (which may include them) on the
>> list. I don't see any need for a second mailing list for this.
>>
>
> This is true and suitable for particular locally-based and driven
> resources (such as PCEnv). But for the larger community to succeed,
> there needs to be at some level a governing body of some kind that
> ensures (as best as possible within the constraints of time and money)
> that the project continues to progress with some consistency. The three
> community resources that I would see governed by such a body are the
> specifications (CellML and metadata), the model repository, and the API.
>
We don't yet have such a governing body in any formal sense (and even if
we did, if feel that the discussions should probably be public and occur
on cellml-discussion).

If we decide that this means that team-cellml at list.bioeng.auckland.ac.nz
serves no purpose, then perhaps we should shut down that mailing list to
force all messages onto cellml-discussion?

Best regards,
Andrew
> But I think this is a different topic and not relevant to this discussion.
>
>
> Andre.
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>

---

• [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses, Andrew Miller, 06/27/2007
  • [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses, David Nickerson, 06/27/2007
    • [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses, Andrew Miller, 06/27/2007
      • [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses, David Nickerson, 06/27/2007
        • [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses, Andrew Miller, 06/27/2007
      • [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses, James Lawson, 06/27/2007
    • [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses, James Lawson, 06/27/2007
  • [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses, James Lawson, 06/27/2007

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.