[tdwg-phylo] TDWG mailing list consolidation
SBlum at calacademy.org
Wed Sep 8 18:45:00 CEST 2010
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.
On 9/8/10 7:42 AM, "Hilmar Lapp" <hlapp at 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
> 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
>> the same subscribers, we are seeking to merge lists into just a few
>> The main 3 mailing lists we want to maintain in the future being:
>> tdwg at lists.tdwg.org
>> A list with very low traffic for official TDWG announcements from
>> the executive committee
>> tdwg-content at 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 at lists.tdwg.org
>> The technical architecture group list that will host discussions
>> about the
>> technical details of standards
>> 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
>> Best wishes,
>> Markus Döring
>> tdwg-phylo mailing list
>> tdwg-phylo at lists.tdwg.org
More information about the tdwg-phylo