[Ctk-developers] a story of two lists

[Stephen Aylward]

I see your point.

My view is often extremely one-sided:)   Sorry about that.

I'm happy to go with the two lists as you originally described.

Thanks,
Stephen

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Marco Viceconti <viceconti at tecno.ior.it> wrote:
> The idea or creating a public list for "passive" members called
> announcements is probably a good idea in due time; now it might be a bit too
> early for that, I do not know.
>
> But what I proposed is different.  It is quite clear that in Kitware
> organisation the same person follow the entire life cycle of the software
> from general strategic issues such as copyright, architecture, etc. to
> actual hands-on programming.  But this is not the case in my organisation,
> where for example I do play an active role in architectural design, but I do
> not materially program myself since 19..., well a long while ago.
>
> Now if most participating organisations are organised as Kitware, it make
> more sense to stay all on one list; on the contrary if the majority is
> organised as B3C, then it is better to split in two, both "active" but
> focused on different aspects.
>
> Cheers
>
> Marco
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno 13 Apr 2010, alle ore 17:52, Stephen Aylward ha scritto:
>
>> I think having two lists is a good idea.
>>
>> Many people will simply subscribe to both - but different people will
>> have different interests and levels of involvement.   My thought is
>> that perhaps the second list would be for people who want to track the
>> community without knowing anything about the code (e.g., program
>> officers at funding agencies, administrators, etc).   As such, perhaps
>> we should change the names and purposes of the list slightly:
>>
>> ctk-developers covers all things related to the code: architectural
>> discussions, copyright, licensing, which libraries to include, etc.
>> This is the really active, high-traffic list.
>>
>> ctk-announcements covers all things "public": advertising and
>> organizational matters of the community: meetings, grant proposals,
>> funding opportunities, etc.   It is intended for the passive
>> participants.   Hence "announcements"    It should not receive heavy
>> traffic or people will unsubscribe.
>>
>> I don't feel strongly about this - but I think it might be hard to
>> separate copyright from library inclusion discussions, implementation
>> from architecture discussions, etc., and most of the time people
>> join/leave lists based on traffic/spam.   We should make it easy for
>> everyone to track us and yet not involve them in every discussion.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Tarbox, Lawrence <tarboxl at mir.wustl.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Good idea.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org
>>> [mailto:ctk-developers-bounces at commontk.org] On Behalf Of Marco Viceconti
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:12 AM
>>> To: ctk-developers at commontk.org
>>> Subject: [Ctk-developers] a story of two lists
>>>
>>> Dear All:
>>>  I am very happy to see that the CTK community is really starting
>>> up.  But I see a potential risk in the current communication model.
>>> As it is now, we have a single mailing list to discuss everything from
>>> the single cmake instruction that breaks the dashboard to the
>>> copyright issues.  I know some of you have a role in your
>>> organisations that cover this entire spectrum, but I also know that in
>>> my organisation, and I suspect in other as well, the persons that are
>>> interested in some topics are not the same that are interested in
>>> others.
>>>
>>> If this is true for others I would ask we split the list in two, ctk-
>>> developers and ctk-governance.  In the first we shall continue to
>>> discuss all implementation problems, in the second issues such as
>>> licensing, copyright, architectural choices, community development, etc.
>>>
>>> Of course one would be allowed so sign up to both, so that for those
>>> who cover all aspects would not change much. But for the others we
>>> could partition the communication more effectively, which usually
>>> improves the level of participation.
>>>
>>> Comments are welcome
>>>
>>> Marco
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> MARCO VICECONTI, PhD                             (viceconti at tecno.ior.it)
> Laboratorio di Tecnologia Medica              tel.   39-051-6366865
> Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli                            fax.   39-051-6366863
> via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136 - Bologna, Italy
>
> Tiger! Tiger! Burning bright in the forest of the night,
> what immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry?
> --------------------------------------------------
> Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer
>
>
>
>



-- 
Stephen R. Aylward, Ph.D.
Director of Medical Imaging Research
Kitware, Inc. - North Carolina Office
http://www.kitware.com
stephen.aylward (Skype)
(919) 969-6990 x300