IMPLEMENTERS LIST
a discussion list for early adopters has been set up. We decided to call it "openehr-implementers" (NOTE spelling of "implementers"!), rather than "early-adopters" since in a couple of years' time there will be people on the list who are at a mature stage of development.
We are testing the list at the moment. What we need to know from the community is how we should run it.
Q - should the list be completely open to any openEHR member (i.e. anyone with a login), as for the existing 3 lists?
Q - or should it be more closed, to protect commercial sensitivities of some members? If so how would new members get onto it?
Personally I think it should be open like the other lists. I believe that commercial organisations have to take responsibility themselves for using such lists while protecting any "secret" knowledge they have. There is always, after all, private email. When we have an answer to this, we will provide an access point to the list.
THE Reply-to PROBLEM
We have asked in the past which way the openEHR community wanted the list servers set, and it seemed pretty clear that most people would prefer to have Reply-to set to the list, avoiding the annoyance of using "reply-all" in your email client. However, our system administrators have so far preferred to keep it the way it is, due to the extra work involved in dealing with automatic holiday/absence mail, as well as various other nuisances. As I am sure everyone will agree, email is not what it used to be - spam and the sheer numbers of people using email have made life more challenging for those who manage systems. Nevertheless, we will endeavour to get this setting changed for the community as soon as possible.
Q - should the list be completely open to any openEHR member (i.e. anyone with a login), as for the existing 3 lists?
Q - or should it be more closed, to protect commercial sensitivities of some members? If so how would new members get onto it?
Personally I think it should be open like the other lists. I believe that commercial organisations have to take responsibility themselves for using such lists while protecting any "secret" knowledge they have. There is always, after all, private email. When we have an answer to this, we will provide an access point to the list.
I agree with Tom's point on this. Sensitivity to secrets of commercial orgs is of course important, but I feel that understanding by the community that there are such concerns, especially in an open environment, should be encouraged; I don't like the idea of making a more conditional use of a discussion list for implementors, a list I hope will be as useful a medium to share ideas and discussion as the other lists.
Q - should the list be completely open to any openEHR member
(i.e. anyone with a login), as for the existing 3 lists?
YES ! Open to all ... even list-lurkers (like me).
My Q: Why have four lists ? Amalgamate all and have just one
with all components shared. There is so much cross-over of the
material that there is hardly a single post which can be stated
to be specific for any of the sub groups ... the volumes too
are not much bothersome, as of now
Q - or should it be more closed, to protect commercial
sensitivities of some members? If so how would new members get
onto it?
Closed ? No way ... that would be 'blasphemy' In no way can
we compromise the spirit of Open Source. Just a reminder of our
QRs from the opening page of openehr.org:
<quote>
developing open-source specifications, software and
knowledge management resources
</quote>
Personally I think it should be open like the other lists. I
believe that commercial organisations have to take
responsibility themselves for using such lists while protecting
any "secret" knowledge they have. There is always, after all,
private email. When we have an answer to this, we will provide
an access point to the list.
I am 100% in consonance with you here ...
THE Reply-to PROBLEM
[ rest snipped]
Thanks for the info. Happy that the issue is under process ...
Q - should the list be completely open to any openEHR member
(i.e. anyone with a login), as for the existing 3 lists?
YES ! Open to all ... even list-lurkers (like me).
My Q: Why have four lists ? Amalgamate all and have just one
with all components shared. There is so much cross-over of the
material that there is hardly a single post which can be stated
to be specific for any of the sub groups ... the volumes too
are not much bothersome, as of now
Well, we currently only really have 2 lists - technical and clinical. As time goes on, my guess (and our original prediction on which this was based) is that the clinical list will emerge as the forum for detailed discussions about the domain - how to describe it, formalise it, how to agree on concepts, ontological discussions and so on, while the technical list will be about modelling, system design, deployments, security, and so on. Note - I am not saying that clinical people shouldn't subscribe to the technical list, nor that IT people should not subscribe to the clinical list. On the contrary, clinical people care very much about GUI screen efficiency (they'd just as rather be playing golf or at the pub rather than entering data as anyone else) and system performance; health informatics developers on the other hand should make it their mission to understand the domain. So the two main lists are not to separate people, but to separate discussions. It doesn't work for every topic, but I think it will generally serve us well as time goes on.
Other efforts with more lists don't do well in my opinion - HL7 has many lists, and there is heavy cross-posting all the time. In the Australian GeHR project we ran in 1998-2002, we had about 6 lists, and it was too many. But I think one is too few.
We suggested the early adopters/implementers list for people who a) are actually doing implementations, or want to lurk on such a list, and b) won't mind the extra message load. Many people won't want another list, which may generate quite a lot of messages which they will never read, so it seems reasonable to have just one more list for people who want to talk about the nitty-gritty issues of actually building systems based on openEHR.
I would be interested to hear further from those who expressed interest in the adopters/implementers list.
I agree with the others that the early adopters/implementers list should be open to all just like the other lists. It fits well with what openEHR does - promote open source standards and software.
I agree with the others that the early adopters/implementers list should be open to all just like the other lists. It fits well with what openEHR does - promote open source standards and software.
I also agree, and would add that if, once in practice, the potential causes of strife that Thomas identified become real, a new list could be splintered off easily enough.
IMPLEMENTERS LIST
a discussion list for early adopters has been set up. We decided to call it "openehr-implementers" (NOTE spelling of "implementers"!), rather than "early-adopters" since in a couple of years' time there will be people on the list who are at a mature stage of development.
We are testing the list at the moment. What we need to know from the community is how we should run it.
Q - should the list be completely open to any openEHR member (i.e. anyone with a login), as for the existing 3 lists?
Q - or should it be more closed, to protect commercial sensitivities of some members? If so how would new members get onto it?
I guess a completely open list will be the best choice, because input can come from more people.
Maybe a slight form of moderation would be good, to avoid too much off topic posts.
Personally I think it should be open like the other lists. I believe that commercial organisations have to take responsibility themselves for using such lists while protecting any "secret" knowledge they have. There is always, after all, private email. When we have an answer to this, we will provide an access point to the list.
THE Reply-to PROBLEM
We have asked in the past which way the openEHR community wanted the list servers set, and it seemed pretty clear that most people would prefer to have Reply-to set to the list, avoiding the annoyance of using "reply-all" in your email client. However, our system administrators have so far preferred to keep it the way it is, due to the extra work involved in dealing with automatic holiday/absence mail, as well as various other nuisances. As I am sure everyone will agree, email is not what it used to be - spam and the sheer numbers of people using email have made life more challenging for those who manage systems. Nevertheless, we will endeavour to get this setting changed for the community as soon as possible.
Please take a look at the relevant headers of another mailinglist to which I communicate a lot, which does not have nuisances of "out of the office"-messages, these header involve a message which I got from that list, and had no relation to me, or a previous email I wrote, maybe one can learn from this configuration:
Return-Path: <sqlite-users-return-3380-bert.verhees=rosa.nl@sqlite.org>
Received: from sqlite.org (sqlite.org [67.18.92.124])
by mxdrop20.xs4all.nl (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j0R3l2vG077569
for <bert.verhees@rosa.nl>; Thu, 27 Jan 2005 04:47:03 +0100 (CET)
(envelope-from sqlite-users-return-3380-bert.verhees=rosa.nl@sqlite.org)
Mailing-List: contact sqlite-users-help@sqlite.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: SQLite Users Mailing List <sqlite-users.sqlite.org>
List-Post: <mailto:sqlite-users@sqlite.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sqlite-users-help@sqlite.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:sqlite-users-unsubscribe@sqlite.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:sqlite-users-subscribe@sqlite.org>
