Dear members of the TDWG mailing list tdwg-phylo, TDWG has seen a proliferation of mailing lists over the years, most of which are inactive today. Traffic on most lists is rather little and usually limited to only a short period of time. As most lists also have very much the same subscribers, we are seeking to merge lists into just a few ones. The main 3 mailing lists we want to maintain in the future being: tdwg@lists.tdwg.org A list with very low traffic for official TDWG announcements from the executive committee http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org A list for all non technical discussions covering all TDWG working groups / standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org The technical architecture group list that will host discussions about the technical details of standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag Within the next days we will automatically add all subscribers of this list to tdwg and tdwg-content and will merge all existing archives of the mailing list tdwg-phylo into tdwg-content. The list tdwg-phylo will be closed and removed once the archives have been merged. Best wishes, Markus Döring
Markus and Lee - I understand that there are lumpers and splitters in mailing list design as much as in taxonomy. Similarly, there are benefits and disadvantages to either. We feel that we want to retain a mailing list that is the home for communication of business of the Phylogenetic Standards Interest Group, and where users know that traffic will be related only to that. That allows everyone to use their email filters to the best extent, and to selectively subscribe to the traffic they want to subscribe to. If you insist on merging or shutting down our mailing list against our declared will, we will move our business to a Google group. I then also suggest that we have a public session at the TDWG conference devoted to discussing this kind of unilateral decision making over the heads of TDWG's interest group conveners. This is the first time ever as a IG convener hear about this. I was under the impression that TDWG as an organization is committed to support and empower their interest groups. What you are proposing here, and the style of decision making and communication is the exact opposite of that. -hilmar On Sep 8, 2010, at 6:32 AM, Markus Döring (GBIF) wrote:
Dear members of the TDWG mailing list tdwg-phylo,
TDWG has seen a proliferation of mailing lists over the years, most of which are inactive today. Traffic on most lists is rather little and usually limited to only a short period of time. As most lists also have very much the same subscribers, we are seeking to merge lists into just a few ones. The main 3 mailing lists we want to maintain in the future being:
tdwg@lists.tdwg.org A list with very low traffic for official TDWG announcements from the executive committee http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org A list for all non technical discussions covering all TDWG working groups / standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org The technical architecture group list that will host discussions about the technical details of standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
Within the next days we will automatically add all subscribers of this list to tdwg and tdwg-content and will merge all existing archives of the mailing list tdwg-phylo into tdwg-content. The list tdwg-phylo will be closed and removed once the archives have been merged.
Best wishes, Markus Döring _______________________________________________ tdwg-phylo mailing list tdwg-phylo@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-phylo
-- =========================================================== : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org : ===========================================================
Thanks Hilmar! Ditto! Nico On Sep 8, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Hilmar Lapp wrote:
Markus and Lee -
I understand that there are lumpers and splitters in mailing list design as much as in taxonomy. Similarly, there are benefits and disadvantages to either.
We feel that we want to retain a mailing list that is the home for communication of business of the Phylogenetic Standards Interest Group, and where users know that traffic will be related only to that. That allows everyone to use their email filters to the best extent, and to selectively subscribe to the traffic they want to subscribe to.
If you insist on merging or shutting down our mailing list against our declared will, we will move our business to a Google group.
I then also suggest that we have a public session at the TDWG conference devoted to discussing this kind of unilateral decision making over the heads of TDWG's interest group conveners. This is the first time ever as a IG convener hear about this. I was under the impression that TDWG as an organization is committed to support and empower their interest groups. What you are proposing here, and the style of decision making and communication is the exact opposite of that.
-hilmar
On Sep 8, 2010, at 6:32 AM, Markus Döring (GBIF) wrote:
Dear members of the TDWG mailing list tdwg-phylo,
TDWG has seen a proliferation of mailing lists over the years, most of which are inactive today. Traffic on most lists is rather little and usually limited to only a short period of time. As most lists also have very much the same subscribers, we are seeking to merge lists into just a few ones. The main 3 mailing lists we want to maintain in the future being:
tdwg@lists.tdwg.org A list with very low traffic for official TDWG announcements from the executive committee http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org A list for all non technical discussions covering all TDWG working groups / standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org The technical architecture group list that will host discussions about the technical details of standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
Within the next days we will automatically add all subscribers of this list to tdwg and tdwg-content and will merge all existing archives of the mailing list tdwg-phylo into tdwg-content. The list tdwg-phylo will be closed and removed once the archives have been merged.
Best wishes, Markus Döring _______________________________________________ tdwg-phylo mailing list tdwg-phylo@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-phylo
-- =========================================================== : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org : ===========================================================
_______________________________________________ tdwg-phylo mailing list tdwg-phylo@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-phylo
Indeed, thanks for bringing this up. On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Hilmar Lapp <hlapp@nescent.org> wrote:
Markus and Lee -
I understand that there are lumpers and splitters in mailing list design as much as in taxonomy. Similarly, there are benefits and disadvantages to either.
We feel that we want to retain a mailing list that is the home for communication of business of the Phylogenetic Standards Interest Group, and where users know that traffic will be related only to that. That allows everyone to use their email filters to the best extent, and to selectively subscribe to the traffic they want to subscribe to.
If you insist on merging or shutting down our mailing list against our declared will, we will move our business to a Google group.
I then also suggest that we have a public session at the TDWG conference devoted to discussing this kind of unilateral decision making over the heads of TDWG's interest group conveners. This is the first time ever as a IG convener hear about this. I was under the impression that TDWG as an organization is committed to support and empower their interest groups. What you are proposing here, and the style of decision making and communication is the exact opposite of that.
-hilmar
On Sep 8, 2010, at 6:32 AM, Markus Döring (GBIF) wrote:
Dear members of the TDWG mailing list tdwg-phylo,
TDWG has seen a proliferation of mailing lists over the years, most of which are inactive today. Traffic on most lists is rather little and usually limited to only a short period of time. As most lists also have very much the same subscribers, we are seeking to merge lists into just a few ones. The main 3 mailing lists we want to maintain in the future being:
tdwg@lists.tdwg.org A list with very low traffic for official TDWG announcements from the executive committee http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org A list for all non technical discussions covering all TDWG working groups / standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org The technical architecture group list that will host discussions about the technical details of standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
Within the next days we will automatically add all subscribers of this list to tdwg and tdwg-content and will merge all existing archives of the mailing list tdwg-phylo into tdwg-content. The list tdwg-phylo will be closed and removed once the archives have been merged.
Best wishes, Markus Döring _______________________________________________ tdwg-phylo mailing list tdwg-phylo@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-phylo
-- =========================================================== : Hilmar Lapp -:- Durham, NC -:- informatics.nescent.org : ===========================================================
_______________________________________________ tdwg-phylo mailing list tdwg-phylo@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-phylo
-- Dr. Rutger A. Vos School of Biological Sciences Philip Lyle Building, Level 4 University of Reading Reading RG6 6BX United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 118 378 7535 http://www.nexml.org http://rutgervos.blogspot.com
Hi Hilmar, I'm not sure where Markus is, but Lee and Donald are asleep at the moment so I will step in and respond somewhat unilaterally. I expect the wording in the original note should have been prefaced "If there are are no objections..." Your group clearly has an objection, so I am confident that the phyloinformatics interest group mailing list will NOT be merged. Your understanding of TDWG's larger intentions -- to support the work of interest groups as best we can -- is correct. A "discussion" of our mailing lists being over-partitioned and generally very quiet went on over the last year (i.e., some time ago and not on the phyloinformatics list). It was a response to discussion on one list being relevant to many and people finding it difficult to decide where to post and discussion evolving into topics relevant to many lists (Darwin Core, ABCD, SDD, Geo-spatial, etc). For those groups a merge worked well. Any suggestions would be most welcome. -Stan On 9/8/10 7:42 AM, "Hilmar Lapp" <hlapp@nescent.org> wrote:
Markus and Lee -
I understand that there are lumpers and splitters in mailing list design as much as in taxonomy. Similarly, there are benefits and disadvantages to either.
We feel that we want to retain a mailing list that is the home for communication of business of the Phylogenetic Standards Interest Group, and where users know that traffic will be related only to that. That allows everyone to use their email filters to the best extent, and to selectively subscribe to the traffic they want to subscribe to.
If you insist on merging or shutting down our mailing list against our declared will, we will move our business to a Google group.
I then also suggest that we have a public session at the TDWG conference devoted to discussing this kind of unilateral decision making over the heads of TDWG's interest group conveners. This is the first time ever as a IG convener hear about this. I was under the impression that TDWG as an organization is committed to support and empower their interest groups. What you are proposing here, and the style of decision making and communication is the exact opposite of that.
-hilmar
On Sep 8, 2010, at 6:32 AM, Markus Döring (GBIF) wrote:
Dear members of the TDWG mailing list tdwg-phylo,
TDWG has seen a proliferation of mailing lists over the years, most of which are inactive today. Traffic on most lists is rather little and usually limited to only a short period of time. As most lists also have very much the same subscribers, we are seeking to merge lists into just a few ones. The main 3 mailing lists we want to maintain in the future being:
tdwg@lists.tdwg.org A list with very low traffic for official TDWG announcements from the executive committee http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org A list for all non technical discussions covering all TDWG working groups / standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org The technical architecture group list that will host discussions about the technical details of standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
Within the next days we will automatically add all subscribers of this list to tdwg and tdwg-content and will merge all existing archives of the mailing list tdwg-phylo into tdwg-content. The list tdwg-phylo will be closed and removed once the archives have been merged.
Best wishes, Markus Döring _______________________________________________ tdwg-phylo mailing list tdwg-phylo@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-phylo
Thanks for your response Stan. I can't speak for other IGs and I can imagine that for some (in fact know of at least one) the IG-specific mailing list at TDWG may not serve a need that the group has. I think that's something that each IG needs to evaluate for themselves, and hence my approach would have been to offer to each IG to do the merging work for them if they chose to abandon their own list, rather than assuming that an issue for one group will also be one for everyone else, and the way one group wants it dealt with will also be the one all other groups want. There are, BTW, communities, such as OBO, that split almost obsessively, and while that isn't exactly my preference either, it does help with directing one's traffic where one wants it. Also, systems like Google mail will automatically filter out duplicates from cross-posting. The bottom line from that is that it is better tools, and working with the capabilities of those tools, that helps with managing one's online communication, rather than having a single catch- all pot. -hilmar On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:45 PM, "Blum, Stan" <SBlum@calacademy.org> wrote:
Hi Hilmar,
I'm not sure where Markus is, but Lee and Donald are asleep at the moment so I will step in and respond somewhat unilaterally.
I expect the wording in the original note should have been prefaced "If there are are no objections..." Your group clearly has an objection, so I am confident that the phyloinformatics interest group mailing list will NOT be merged. Your understanding of TDWG's larger intentions -- to support the work of interest groups as best we can -- is correct.
A "discussion" of our mailing lists being over-partitioned and generally very quiet went on over the last year (i.e., some time ago and not on the phyloinformatics list). It was a response to discussion on one list being relevant to many and people finding it difficult to decide where to post and discussion evolving into topics relevant to many lists (Darwin Core, ABCD, SDD, Geo-spatial, etc). For those groups a merge worked well.
Any suggestions would be most welcome.
-Stan
On 9/8/10 7:42 AM, "Hilmar Lapp" <hlapp@nescent.org> wrote:
Markus and Lee -
I understand that there are lumpers and splitters in mailing list design as much as in taxonomy. Similarly, there are benefits and disadvantages to either.
We feel that we want to retain a mailing list that is the home for communication of business of the Phylogenetic Standards Interest Group, and where users know that traffic will be related only to that. That allows everyone to use their email filters to the best extent, and to selectively subscribe to the traffic they want to subscribe to.
If you insist on merging or shutting down our mailing list against our declared will, we will move our business to a Google group.
I then also suggest that we have a public session at the TDWG conference devoted to discussing this kind of unilateral decision making over the heads of TDWG's interest group conveners. This is the first time ever as a IG convener hear about this. I was under the impression that TDWG as an organization is committed to support and empower their interest groups. What you are proposing here, and the style of decision making and communication is the exact opposite of that.
-hilmar
On Sep 8, 2010, at 6:32 AM, Markus Döring (GBIF) wrote:
Dear members of the TDWG mailing list tdwg-phylo,
TDWG has seen a proliferation of mailing lists over the years, most of which are inactive today. Traffic on most lists is rather little and usually limited to only a short period of time. As most lists also have very much the same subscribers, we are seeking to merge lists into just a few ones. The main 3 mailing lists we want to maintain in the future being:
tdwg@lists.tdwg.org A list with very low traffic for official TDWG announcements from the executive committee http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg
tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org A list for all non technical discussions covering all TDWG working groups / standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-content
tdwg-tag@lists.tdwg.org The technical architecture group list that will host discussions about the technical details of standards http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tag
Within the next days we will automatically add all subscribers of this list to tdwg and tdwg-content and will merge all existing archives of the mailing list tdwg-phylo into tdwg-content. The list tdwg-phylo will be closed and removed once the archives have been merged.
Best wishes, Markus Döring _______________________________________________ tdwg-phylo mailing list tdwg-phylo@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-phylo
participants (5)
-
Blum, Stan -
Hilmar Lapp -
Markus Döring (GBIF) -
Nico Cellinese -
Rutger Vos