Better approach for announcements, forums?

Bert Verhees bert.verhees at
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.


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 
> <mailto:thomas.beale at>> 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
>         <>)
>           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
>     <> 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
>     <mailto:openEHR-technical at>
>     <>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list