Hi all,
I'm just catching up to this email thread now. I also saw that there was
a similar request for a circulation list that was briefly discussed in
IRC last week.
There seems to be two schools of thought in the community about mailing
lists. There are a lot of people who would like to see most of the
discussions happening on just one or two lists so that nobody is missing
out on information that may be important to them. The volume of
discussion in the community is certainly small enough to support the
idea of using just one or two lists for all of our communication.
We also have people who prefer to communicate on topical lists that
pertain to their area of focus.
I'm one of those people who would prefer that all Evergreen discussions
happen on the general list, but I'm also a person who feels comfortable
posting to the general list. When the catalogers list was created a few
years ago, I noticed a couple of people posting to the list who I had
previously rarely seen posting on the general list. I think that's one
value to creating these topical lists. No matter how much we tell people
they should feel comfortable posting on any Evergreen-related topic to
the general list, there will always be people who feel a little
intimidated about posting to a list the goes out to the entire Evergreen
community. If a new list gets more people comfortable with participating
in the community, I consider it a win.
Although I also sometimes hear concerns that talking too much on a given
topic might clog up another list, I've ever heard anyone complain about
this issue. It would be good to know if there are people who do indeed
think there is too much traffic coming from their Evergreen list
discussions, but I personally find the volume very low.
Another factor to consider is that topical lists might give people a
feeling that there is a place for them in the community. Since we have
already created lists for reports and cataloging, I can see why
community members might hope there is a similar communication platform
for other topical areas.
What we seem to be lacking is any kind of process for requesting new
lists or guidelines about when a new list is warranted. With no process,
my concern is that this request and the circ request will just die with
no definitive answer. A clear 'no' answer with reasons why the list will
not be created is better than no answer at all.
I've looked around and found a couple of other communities that have
some kind of language around new lists.
Debian - https://www.debian.org/MailingLists/HOWTO_start_list (very vague)
One Laptop Per Child -
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Mailing_lists#Starting_a_new_list
If you all think this is a good idea, I would be willing to work on
coming up with some guidelines. Also, let me know if you are interested
in helping out.
Kathy
On 04/21/2017 09:37 AM, Rogan Hamby wrote:
My concern would be that we have already seen other lists (such as the
Sysadmin one) suffer from splintering as Jason pointed out. People
may not sign up for a new list serv and less eyes on communication
ends up being a detriment.
The cataloging list for example I don't think is suffering from such a
volume of messages that adding to it will create too many noise points
or disrupt it's existing communication. So far in the whole of 2017 to
date (109 days) we have had 23 messages on the cataloging list, so a
frequency of just over one every five days. I think there's plenty of
room in there for focus to happen :)
And I will also echo Jason's point about development input should
happen on the development list where possible. The dev list is not a
secret club for coders but for development. Sometimes the lines blur
and discussion of features, bugs, etc... happens across lists (which
is healthy) but when things are clearly about specific development I
don't see how splintering the communication away from the people who
file bugs, test bugs, write patches, etc... benefits it.
Rogan Hamby
Data and Project Analyst
Equinox Open Library Initiative
phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
email: ro...@equinoxinitiative.org
web: http://EquinoxInitiative.org
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Tiffany Little
<tlit...@georgialibraries.org <mailto:tlit...@georgialibraries.org>>
wrote:
My vote would be "yes" for having a specific listserv for
Acquisitions. It would let the discussions be more Acq-specific
instead of clogging up the Catalogers' list with stuff they might
not care about, and could be a more focused discussion since it
wouldn't be mixed in with other areas of interest.
Tiffany
--
Tiffany Little
/PINES Services Specialist, Acquisitions/
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Suite 150
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
(404) 235-7160 <tel:%28404%29%20235-7160>
tlit...@georgialibraries.org <mailto:tlit...@georgialibraries.org>
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Jason Stephenson <ja...@sigio.com
<mailto:ja...@sigio.com>> wrote:
I'd argue for "No" on the creation of an acquisitions list.
Mainly for
the same reasons that the administrators' list was shut down
and that I
disagree with the creation of a circulation list.
I think the discussion of Angularization of acquisitions
interfaces
belongs on the development list and not on the catalogers,
general, or a
new list. If you want to discuss how the interface looks and
works,
you're a developer whether or not you write code, like it or not.
Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary, etc.
On 04/21/2017 08:27 AM, Elaine Hardy wrote:
> Christine,
>
> Works for me....
>
> Elaine
>
>
>
> J. Elaine Hardy
> PINES & Collaborative Projects Manager
> Georgia Public Library Service/PINES
> 1800 Century Place, Ste. 150
> Atlanta, GA 30045
>
> 404.235.7128 <tel:404.235.7128> Office
> 404.548.4241 <tel:404.548.4241> Cell
> 404.235.7201 <tel:404.235.7201> FAX
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Christine Burns
> <christine.bu...@bc.libraries.coop
<mailto:christine.bu...@bc.libraries.coop>
> <mailto:christine.bu...@bc.libraries.coop
<mailto:christine.bu...@bc.libraries.coop>>> wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> The Acquisitions Interest Group is requesting an
Acquisitions
> specific listserv. Currently Acquisitions falls under the
> Cataloguers list with the rest of technicial services.
During the
> Acquisitions Interest Group meeting at the Evergreen
Conference this
> month the group discussed the need for an Acquisitions
specific
> listserv to facilitate AIG activity. We are anticipating an
> increased amount of Acquisitions specific discussions
during the
> Angularization of the Acquisitions module in the web client.
>
> This topic is open for discussion please voice your
opinion by
> *Friday May 5th*.
>
> A copy of the meeting minutes can be found on the
Acquisitions
> Interest Group wiki page here -
>
https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=acq:interest-group
<https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=acq:interest-group>
>
<https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=acq:interest-group
<https://wiki.evergreen-ils.org/doku.php?id=acq:interest-group>>
>
> Thank you
> Christine
>
>
> --
> Christine Burns
> Co-op Support
> BC Libraries Cooperative
> Ph: 1-888-848-9250 <tel:1-888-848-9250>
<tel:(888)%20848-9250>
> https://bc.libraries.coop
> https://status.libraries.coop/ <https://status.libraries.coop/>
>
>
--
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 343-0128
kluss...@masslnc.org
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
