Better approach for announcements, forums?

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at rosa.nl
Fri Dec 30 11:26:51 EST 2016


Hi Pablo,

I agree that there are some lists which can be combined to technical, as 
you say, technical, implementers and ref_impl_java.
That is indeed over-engineering.

But I don't agree on the second part because I think announcements must 
be read-only, as a courtesy to the announcer.

And another argument, for example, when you offer a small service, 
writing archetypes, giving education, or you write a modeling tool, or 
even a book, that kind of things, I don't see that fit in a technical or 
clinical mailing-list.
It makes it also easy to search the archive for services or products.

Bert


Op 30-12-2016 om 15:41 schreef Pablo Pazos:
> IMO we are over-engineering things that can be solved by agreeing on a 
> set of rules. We even have two lists technical and implements and 
> there might be just one.
>
> The active members of the community that participate in these channels 
> is low. Adding more communication channels will just disperse the 
> community.
>
> We need less channels and usage rules.
>
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2016 6:18 AM, "Thomas Beale" <thomas.beale at openehr.org 
> <mailto:thomas.beale at openehr.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     Following from what you and Bert have said, it seems that the
>     following could make sense:
>
>       * Foundation announcements list / channel (= openehr-announce
>         list we have now)
>       * software / libraries / tools announcements (= web home page
>         news items with cog icon, also here
>         <http://www.openehr.org/news_events/releases>)
>           o this includes open source software libs / projects
>       * commercial product offerings - currently we don't really have
>         a way of doing this, but Industry Partners can post on web
>         home page (factory icon)
>
>     I'm not sure what the right approach is, since there are many
>     technical possibilities.
>
>     Marcus Baw has proposed moving to Discourse
>     <http://www.discourse.org/> as a forum platform - maybe this is
>     the kind of thing we should look at?
>
>     - thomas
>
>
>     On 29/12/2016 17:16, Diego Boscá wrote:
>>     Well, we will provide for free a product that was behind a paywall
>>     before (LinkEHR lite was the free version we had, and now the 'basic'
>>     and free version is the equivalent to the past LinkEHR editor). I'm
>>     curious what kind of announcement we could make :)
>>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     openEHR-technical mailing list
>     openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org
>     <mailto:openEHR-technical at lists.openehr.org>
>     http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
>     <http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20161230/6d6d078b/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list