Matt wrote:
>> I still don't like the idea of a 'core project team' simply because that
>> would require defining what the core project is, and it would appear to
>> then give exclusive domain over such aspects to a limited set of people.
>> In some sense, my objection is that the CellML 'project'
> >
> >> events like the CellML Workshop. There is also the members directory for
> >> everyone who has an account on cellml.org.
> >>
> >
> > But is that available to visitors and other members?
> >
> You can view:
> http://www.cellml.org/Members/member_search_results
> without being logged in (of
> I still don't like the idea of a 'core project team' simply because that
> would require defining what the core project is, and it would appear to
> then give exclusive domain over such aspects to a limited set of people.
> In some sense, my objection is that the CellML 'project' is not strictly
James Lawson wrote:
> David Nickerson wrote:
>
>> I think using the mechanism Andrew suggested earlier which allows people
>> to make themselves visible on the subscribers list for cellml-discussion
>> is a suitable way to achieve this,
>>
>
>
> Hmm, this is pretty low-key though. I th
On 6/26/07, James Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Nickerson wrote:
> > Matt wrote:
> >> This seems like it's going in circles. 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 shou
David Nickerson wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>> This seems like it's going in circles. 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@cellml.org
>>
>> 2
David Nickerson wrote:
>> The problem that lead to this thread of discussion is that there is no
>> well-defined project team, and I don't think that we need to create a
>> formal project team to make a list of contact addresses.
>
> http://www.cellml.org/team exists and has existed since cellml
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@cellml.org
>
> 2) [EMAIL PROTECTE
Matt wrote:
> This seems like it's going in circles. I'm not really sure why anyone
> would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
> send to the list.
Wasn't this originally your suggestion?
Thinking about this more we should probably try:
>
> 1) cellml-discussion@cell
> a catchall for the whole team for example, I don't really know
> who I would want to bother personally if I had a personal problem with
> the sbml site or wanted to invite the team to a conference, or was
> rejected from the mailing list, etx; I would just use the "Email:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6/25/07, David Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > On 6/25/07, David Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Matt wrote:
> >>> This seems like it's going in circles. I'm not really sure why anyone
> >>> would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
>
Matt wrote:
> On 6/25/07, David Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>> This seems like it's going in circles. 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
On 6/25/07, David Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > This seems like it's going in circles. 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)
Matt wrote:
> This seems like it's going in circles. 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@cellml.org
>
> 2) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - for spec
> The problem that lead to this thread of discussion is that there is no
> well-defined project team, and I don't think that we need to create a
> formal project team to make a list of contact addresses.
http://www.cellml.org/team exists and has existed since cellml.org first
went live. Are you
This seems like it's going in circles. 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@cellml.org
2) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - for specific enquiries that you do
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
>> categ
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 projec
David Nickerson wrote:
In terms of the policy for allocating addresses, we don't want to become
a free e-mail redirection host for anyone on the Internet, but I think
as long as someone at least has some connection with CellML, they should
be allowed an alias (subject to revi
James Lawson wrote:
> See below...
>
> Andrew Miller wrote:
>
>> David Nickerson wrote:
>>
>> I see the project team is being the core management team for the CellML
>> project - essentially the group that should be making the decisions when
>> consensus can't be reached and s
See below...
Andrew Miller wrote:
> David Nickerson wrote:
> I see the project team is being the core management team for the CellML
> project - essentially the group that should be making the decisions when
> consensus can't be reached and setting the goals for the future of the
>>
The reason I thought this topic was appropriate for team-cellml, is
because it is specifically talking about our project team.
David Nickerson wrote:
I see the project team is being the core management team for the CellML
project - essentially the group that should be making the decisio
Andrew Miller wrote:
> James Lawson wrote:
>> David Nickerson wrote:
>>
>>> I see the project team is being the core management team for the CellML
>>> project - essentially the group that should be making the decisions when
>>> consensus can't be reached and setting the goals for the future o
>>> In terms of the policy for allocating addresses, we don't want to become
>>> a free e-mail redirection host for anyone on the Internet, but I think
>>> as long as someone at least has some connection with CellML, they should
>>> be allowed an alias (subject to review of what that alias is to
David Nickerson wrote:
I see the project team is being the core management team for the CellML
project - essentially the group that should be making the decisions when
consensus can't be reached and setting the goals for the future of the
CellML project. Although I'm really n
>>> I see the project team is being the core management team for the CellML
>>> project - essentially the group that should be making the decisions when
>>> consensus can't be reached and setting the goals for the future of the
>>> CellML project. Although I'm really not too sure who would be in
James Lawson wrote:
> David Nickerson wrote:
>
>> I see the project team is being the core management team for the CellML
>> project - essentially the group that should be making the decisions when
>> consensus can't be reached and setting the goals for the future of the
>> CellML project. Al
27 matches
Mail list logo
