Re: [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses
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. > > 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. > But how interested in these group-specific announcements are other groups going to be? >> 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. >> 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 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. >> Andre. >> >> >> >> Andrew Miller wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> There has been some discussion recently about how best to handle local >>> CellML addresses (which can be used by local groups with an interest in >>> CellML to arrange meetings and hold other discussions which are purely >>> local in scope and not of interest to the broader CellML community). >>> >>> At the University of Auckland, we have a list for the Auckland CellML >>> team. However, I feel that some of the discussion on that list would >>> probably better occur on the cellml-discussion mailing list (or another >>> more public forum). After discussing this at our Auckland CellML group >>> meeting, it was suggested that perhaps similar issues are arising at >>> other localised groups working on CellML. To this end, we came up with a >>> rough proposal (which I expand on below) which I hope will help both the >>> Auckland group and other groups using CellML to collaborate. >>> >>> Please note that this is just a proposal, and I would welcome feedback >>> on how we can improve it. I would be especially interested to hear >>> opinions from other groups outside Auckland using CellML. >>> >>> Proposal: >>> " >>> 1) Groups can request @cellml.org mailing lists. >>> a) Any group which is working on a CellML related project may [follow >>> some procedure which needs to be decided] to request a mailing list for >>> discussion of location specific matters related to their CellML project. >>> b) The e-mail address requested shall follow the format >>> @cellml.org, where is replaced with a short word, >>> phrase, or abbrevation which describes the geographical location of the >>> group concerned. >>> c) The location name should be sufficient to uniquely distinguish the >>> group from other separate groups that may wish to work on CellML. List >>> names are subject to review to ensure that they are unlikely to conflict >>> with another group or cause confusion. >>> >>> 2) Location-specific mailing lists to have open membership and be >>> publicly archived. >>> a) Any person may join any location-specific mailing list without >>> moderator approval, regardless of their actual geographic location. >>> b) All location-specific mailing lists shall have a publicly readable >>> archive, hosted at cellml.org. >>> >>> 3) Scope and posting rules for location-specific mailing lists. >>> a) All messages posted to location-specific mailing lists must be >>> related in some way to CellML, or to tools which
Re: [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses
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. 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. Just a side note: at present, people who we would very much like to be participating in discussions or at the very least be subscribed to the list, are not subscribed because most of what is being discussed on the list is irrelevant to them. The discussion list is described as being 'for those interested in contributing to the development of CellML,' rather than what I gather is the currently intended function. That is, 'all things cellml.' I brought this up at the ABI meeting today and we think it needs to be addressed somehow. I have yet to see any need for this. To be honest, I have to say I don't really agree with this response either. I do think that some changes are needed, however, to address issues that we've been talking about regarding a.) building community and getting more people involved in cellml-discussion, b.) providing a useful platform for people to get help, and c.) what I mention above. Also, as I said in an earlier reply to this thread, I think that most groups would already have their own group mailing list / electronic communication network. Why would they want a cellml.org one? Especially with all the rules Andrew intends to impose. Not that I necessarily disagree with the guidelines he's suggested, it's just a matter of principle. People reject unnecessary control. > > 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 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list would not serve this purpose. > > > Andre. > > > > Andrew Miller wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There has been some discussion recently about how best to handle local >> CellML addresses (which can be used by local groups with an interest in >> CellML to arrange meetings and hold other discussions which are purely >> local in scope and not of interest to the broader CellML community). >> >> At the University of Auckland, we have a list for the Auckland CellML >> team. However, I feel that some of the discussion on that list would >> probably better occur on the cellml-discussion mailing list (or another >> more public forum). After discussing this at our Auckland CellML group >> meeting, it was suggested that perhaps similar issues are arising at >> other localised groups working on CellML. To this end, we came up with a >> rough proposal (which I expand on below) which I hope will help both the >> Auckland group and other groups using CellML to collaborate. >> >> Please note that this is just a proposal, and I would welcome feedback >> on how we can improve it. I would be especially interested to hear >> opinions from other groups outside Auckland using CellML. >> >> Proposal: >> " >> 1) Groups can request @cellml.org mailing lists. >> a) Any group which is working on a CellML related project may [follow >> some procedure which needs to be decided] to request a mailing list for >> discussion of location specific matters related to their CellML project. >> b) The e-mail address requested shall follow the format >> @cellml.org, where is replaced with a short word, >> phrase, or abbrevation which describes the geographical location of the >> group concerned. >> c) The location name should be sufficient to uniquely distinguish the >> group from other separate groups that may wish to work on CellML. List >> names are subject to review to ensure that they are unlikely to conflict >> with another group or cause confusion. >> >> 2) Location-specific mailing lists to have open membership and be >> publicly archived. >> a) Any person may join any location-specific mailing list without >> moderator approval, regardless of their actual geographic location. >> b) All location-specific mailing lists shall have a publicly readable >> archive, hosted at cellml.org. >> >> 3) Scope and posting rules for location-specific mailing lists. >> a) All messages posted to location-specific mailing lists must be >> related in some way to CellML, or to tools which process CellML, or to >> the operation of groups with an interest in CellML. Some degree of >> leeway should be afforded by cellml.org administrators here, as long as >> the list is not being used as a free hosting service for work not even >> vaguely related CellML. >> b)
Re: [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses
Andrew Miller wrote: > Hi, > > There has been some discussion recently about how best to handle local > CellML addresses (which can be used by local groups with an interest in > CellML to arrange meetings and hold other discussions which are purely > local in scope and not of interest to the broader CellML community). > Something I didn't think of before... surely most other groups already have a mailing list that serves their group's interest anyway... What would make it worthwhile for them to actually swap over to an official cellml list? > At the University of Auckland, we have a list for the Auckland CellML > team. However, I feel that some of the discussion on that list would > probably better occur on the cellml-discussion mailing list (or another > more public forum). After discussing this at our Auckland CellML group > meeting, it was suggested that perhaps similar issues are arising at > other localised groups working on CellML. To this end, we came up with a > rough proposal (which I expand on below) which I hope will help both the > Auckland group and other groups using CellML to collaborate. > > Please note that this is just a proposal, and I would welcome feedback > on how we can improve it. I would be especially interested to hear > opinions from other groups outside Auckland using CellML. > > Proposal: > " > 1) Groups can request @cellml.org mailing lists. > a) Any group which is working on a CellML related project may [follow > some procedure which needs to be decided] to request a mailing list for > discussion of location specific matters related to their CellML project. > b) The e-mail address requested shall follow the format > @cellml.org, where is replaced with a short word, > phrase, or abbrevation which describes the geographical location of the > group concerned. > c) The location name should be sufficient to uniquely distinguish the > group from other separate groups that may wish to work on CellML. List > names are subject to review to ensure that they are unlikely to conflict > with another group or cause confusion. > > 2) Location-specific mailing lists to have open membership and be > publicly archived. > a) Any person may join any location-specific mailing list without > moderator approval, regardless of their actual geographic location. > b) All location-specific mailing lists shall have a publicly readable > archive, hosted at cellml.org. > > 3) Scope and posting rules for location-specific mailing lists. > a) All messages posted to location-specific mailing lists must be > related in some way to CellML, or to tools which process CellML, or to > the operation of groups with an interest in CellML. Some degree of > leeway should be afforded by cellml.org administrators here, as long as > the list is not being used as a free hosting service for work not even > vaguely related CellML. > b) Message posters are strongly encouraged to send messages which may > be of broader interest to the cellml-discussion list rather than to the > location-specific address. > c) The location-specific mailing lists must not be used for > information which is of a private or confidential nature (after all, it > is an open membership list with a public archive). > d) All posters to location-specific mailing lists agree that their > messages may be further distributed (with attribution to them), > including by forwarding to the cellml-discussion list or by inclusion in > public bug-trackers (and also agree to the translation of their messages > into another language). > e) The location-specific groups may establish their own additional > posting rules by their normal decision-making process, as long as these > posting rules do not conflict with the general rules described here. > These posting rules may include (without limitation) the scope of the > list, who is allowed to post to the list (but not who can subscribe) and > how often, and the permitted language(s) of any posts to the list. > > 4) Administration and moderation of location-specific mailing lists. > a) Each location-specific group shall determine their own process for > the control of their own mailing lists, and their nominated > administrator will be provided with a password allowing them access to > the administrative interface. > b) Group designated administrators are free to change the settings of > the groups location-specific CellML mailing list (after changes are > approved through the appropriate local decision-making processes). > However, they must not make changes which cause the mailing list > archives to be no longer public, or which cause the list to require > moderator approval before allowing subscriptions. > c) Group designated administrators may also (in accordance with > locally determined policies) subscribe and remove people from their > mailing lists are a service to the person being added or removed. > Administrators may infer
Re: [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses
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 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 f
Re: [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses
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? > 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. >> 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? 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. >> 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 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. But I think this is a different topic and not relevant to this discussion. Andre. ___ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
Re: [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses
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. 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. > 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. > 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 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. > > Andre. > > > > Andrew Miller wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> There has been some discussion recently about how best to handle local >> CellML addresses (which can be used by local groups with an interest in >> CellML to arrange meetings and hold other discussions which are purely >> local in scope and not of interest to the broader CellML community). >> >> At the University of Auckland, we have a list for the Auckland CellML >> team. However, I feel that some of the discussion on that list would >> probably better occur on the cellml-discussion mailing list (or another >> more public forum). After discussing this at our Auckland CellML group >> meeting, it was suggested that perhaps similar issues are arising at >> other localised groups working on CellML. To this end, we came up with a >> rough proposal (which I expand on below) which I hope will help both the >> Auckland group and other groups using CellML to collaborate. >> >> Please note that this is just a proposal, and I would welcome feedback >> on how we can improve it. I would be especially interested to hear >> opinions from other groups outside Auckland using CellML. >> >> Proposal: >> " >> 1) Groups can request @cellml.org mailing lists. >> a) Any group which is working on a CellML related project may [follow >> some procedure which needs to be decided] to request a mailing list for >> discussion of location specific matters related to their CellML project. >> b) The e-mail address requested shall follow the format >> @cellml.org, where is replaced with a short word, >> phrase, or abbrevation which describes the geographical location of the >> group concerned. >> c) The location name should be sufficient to uniquely distinguish the >> group from other separate groups that may wish to work on CellML. List >> names are subject to review to ensure that they are unlikely to conflict >> with another group or cause confusion. >> >> 2) Location-specific mailing lists to have open membership and be >> publicly archived. >> a) Any person may join any location-specific mailing list without >> moderator approval, regardless of their actual geographic location. >> b) All location-specific mailing lists shall have a publicly readable >> archive, hosted at cellml.org. >> >> 3) Scope and posting rules for location-specific mailing lists. >> a) All messages posted to location-specific mailing lists must be >> related in some way to CellML, or to tools which process CellML, or to >> the operation of groups with an interest in CellML. Some degree of >> leeway should be afforded by cellml.org administrators here, as long as >> the list is not being used as a free hosting service
Re: [cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses
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. 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. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list would not serve this purpose. Andre. Andrew Miller wrote: > Hi, > > There has been some discussion recently about how best to handle local > CellML addresses (which can be used by local groups with an interest in > CellML to arrange meetings and hold other discussions which are purely > local in scope and not of interest to the broader CellML community). > > At the University of Auckland, we have a list for the Auckland CellML > team. However, I feel that some of the discussion on that list would > probably better occur on the cellml-discussion mailing list (or another > more public forum). After discussing this at our Auckland CellML group > meeting, it was suggested that perhaps similar issues are arising at > other localised groups working on CellML. To this end, we came up with a > rough proposal (which I expand on below) which I hope will help both the > Auckland group and other groups using CellML to collaborate. > > Please note that this is just a proposal, and I would welcome feedback > on how we can improve it. I would be especially interested to hear > opinions from other groups outside Auckland using CellML. > > Proposal: > " > 1) Groups can request @cellml.org mailing lists. > a) Any group which is working on a CellML related project may [follow > some procedure which needs to be decided] to request a mailing list for > discussion of location specific matters related to their CellML project. > b) The e-mail address requested shall follow the format > @cellml.org, where is replaced with a short word, > phrase, or abbrevation which describes the geographical location of the > group concerned. > c) The location name should be sufficient to uniquely distinguish the > group from other separate groups that may wish to work on CellML. List > names are subject to review to ensure that they are unlikely to conflict > with another group or cause confusion. > > 2) Location-specific mailing lists to have open membership and be > publicly archived. > a) Any person may join any location-specific mailing list without > moderator approval, regardless of their actual geographic location. > b) All location-specific mailing lists shall have a publicly readable > archive, hosted at cellml.org. > > 3) Scope and posting rules for location-specific mailing lists. > a) All messages posted to location-specific mailing lists must be > related in some way to CellML, or to tools which process CellML, or to > the operation of groups with an interest in CellML. Some degree of > leeway should be afforded by cellml.org administrators here, as long as > the list is not being used as a free hosting service for work not even > vaguely related CellML. > b) Message posters are strongly encouraged to send messages which may > be of broader interest to the cellml-discussion list rather than to the > location-specific address. > c) The location-specific mailing lists must not be used for > information which is of a private or confidential nature (after all, it > is an open membership list with a public archive). > d) All posters to location-specific mailing lists agree that their > messages may be further distributed (with attribution to them), > including by forwarding to the cellml-discussion list or by inclusion in > public bug-trackers (and also agree to the translation of their messages > into another language). > e) The location-specific groups may establish their own additional > posting rules by their normal decision-making process, as long as these > posting rules do not conflict with the general rules described here. > These posting rules may include (without limitation) the scope of the > list, who is allowed to post to the list (but not who can subscribe) and > how often, and the permitted language(s) of any posts to the list. > > 4) Administration and moderation of location-specific mailing lists. > a) Each location-specific group shall determine their own process for > the control of their own mailing lists, and their nominated > administrator will be provided with a password allowing them
[cellml-discussion] Proposal: Local CellML team e-mail addresses
Hi, There has been some discussion recently about how best to handle local CellML addresses (which can be used by local groups with an interest in CellML to arrange meetings and hold other discussions which are purely local in scope and not of interest to the broader CellML community). At the University of Auckland, we have a list for the Auckland CellML team. However, I feel that some of the discussion on that list would probably better occur on the cellml-discussion mailing list (or another more public forum). After discussing this at our Auckland CellML group meeting, it was suggested that perhaps similar issues are arising at other localised groups working on CellML. To this end, we came up with a rough proposal (which I expand on below) which I hope will help both the Auckland group and other groups using CellML to collaborate. Please note that this is just a proposal, and I would welcome feedback on how we can improve it. I would be especially interested to hear opinions from other groups outside Auckland using CellML. Proposal: " 1) Groups can request @cellml.org mailing lists. a) Any group which is working on a CellML related project may [follow some procedure which needs to be decided] to request a mailing list for discussion of location specific matters related to their CellML project. b) The e-mail address requested shall follow the format @cellml.org, where is replaced with a short word, phrase, or abbrevation which describes the geographical location of the group concerned. c) The location name should be sufficient to uniquely distinguish the group from other separate groups that may wish to work on CellML. List names are subject to review to ensure that they are unlikely to conflict with another group or cause confusion. 2) Location-specific mailing lists to have open membership and be publicly archived. a) Any person may join any location-specific mailing list without moderator approval, regardless of their actual geographic location. b) All location-specific mailing lists shall have a publicly readable archive, hosted at cellml.org. 3) Scope and posting rules for location-specific mailing lists. a) All messages posted to location-specific mailing lists must be related in some way to CellML, or to tools which process CellML, or to the operation of groups with an interest in CellML. Some degree of leeway should be afforded by cellml.org administrators here, as long as the list is not being used as a free hosting service for work not even vaguely related CellML. b) Message posters are strongly encouraged to send messages which may be of broader interest to the cellml-discussion list rather than to the location-specific address. c) The location-specific mailing lists must not be used for information which is of a private or confidential nature (after all, it is an open membership list with a public archive). d) All posters to location-specific mailing lists agree that their messages may be further distributed (with attribution to them), including by forwarding to the cellml-discussion list or by inclusion in public bug-trackers (and also agree to the translation of their messages into another language). e) The location-specific groups may establish their own additional posting rules by their normal decision-making process, as long as these posting rules do not conflict with the general rules described here. These posting rules may include (without limitation) the scope of the list, who is allowed to post to the list (but not who can subscribe) and how often, and the permitted language(s) of any posts to the list. 4) Administration and moderation of location-specific mailing lists. a) Each location-specific group shall determine their own process for the control of their own mailing lists, and their nominated administrator will be provided with a password allowing them access to the administrative interface. b) Group designated administrators are free to change the settings of the groups location-specific CellML mailing list (after changes are approved through the appropriate local decision-making processes). However, they must not make changes which cause the mailing list archives to be no longer public, or which cause the list to require moderator approval before allowing subscriptions. c) Group designated administrators may also (in accordance with locally determined policies) subscribe and remove people from their mailing lists are a service to the person being added or removed. Administrators may infer that a person wishes to be added or removed from the mailing list if they are visiting / commencing employment or leaving the group respectively. However, administrators may not add or remove any person from the mailing list who does not wish to be added or removed, as this would prevent the list from being open membership. d) Group designated administrators may (in accordance with locally determined
