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 
> 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mailing lists with generally out of date membership, mails sent to the 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 
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,
> Regards,
> Dave
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion@cellml.org
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion

cellml-discussion mailing list

Reply via email to