Better approach for announcements, forums?

Pablo Pazos pablo.pazos at cabolabs.com
Fri Dec 30 12:28:27 EST 2016


Personally I don't like one-way communication channels. I prefer to receive
feedback, questions, etc. and leave those questions and answers open for
the community, so others can come in and contribute.

For small communities is better to have few channels, under the same
platform, open and bidirectional.

We are thinking as engineers here, we should think as community managers
and community members.

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Bert Verhees <bert.verhees at rosa.nl> wrote:

> 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> 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>)
>>       - 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
>> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_
>> lists.openehr.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing listopenEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.orghttp://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> openEHR-clinical at lists.openehr.org
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-
> clinical_lists.openehr.org
>



-- 
Ing. Pablo Pazos Gutiérrez
Cel:(00598) 99 043 145
Skype: cabolabs
<http://cabolabs.com/>
http://www.cabolabs.com
pablo.pazos at cabolabs.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openehr.org/pipermail/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org/attachments/20161230/80711fb5/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the openEHR-clinical mailing list