Thank you Michael for bringing this up again. Yes, I remember you
brought this up before. (01)
I do have good reasons to keep it the way it is (i.e. having people
reply to the list rather than to the sender.) Here's how I see it: (02)
1. On an ordinary mailing list, intended to provide communications
among various members of a work team, it is conceivable that
individuals may opt for having the default "reply-to" be set to the
sender, rather than to the list, because particular individuals may be
discussing at a level of detail that they don't want to bother the
rest of the team with. This is especially so if one is running
multiple projects (or subjects) on the same list, where members may
only have peripheral interests on what other team/sub-team are doing,
and that they get to sync up in regular meetings. (03)
2. In our case, (04)
(a) our archived mailing list is designed to be the 'platform for
dialog (or conversation)' among Ontolog members. (05)
(b) this is intended to be the platform for sharing ideas among the
entire *community* (not particular project teams.) (06)
(c) we actually segregate out different projects into different
archived lists (like: [ontology-summit], [ontologizing], [health-ont],
[onion-forum] ... etc.), so that each list, again, are made up of a
team, or a sub-community that is concerned and wants to be kept up on
a particular project/subject matter. (07)
(d) most importantly, more than just using the mailing list as a
communication tool, our design of the Ontolog CWE (collaborative work
environment) is to have this (archived mailing list, as well as the
WebDAV shared-file workspace, and the wiki to work) as a 'knowledge
capture' mechanism so that we can actually capture the entire
life-cycle knowledge of the Ontolog community into the like of what
Doug Engelbart calls a "DKR (Dynamic Knowledge Repository)." (ref:
http://jspwiki.org/wiki/DynamicKnowledgeRepository ) ... In this
setting, among other things, we are just concerned about capturing the
process that gave us the result, as much as the result. Therefore,
documenting the entire 'conversation' is important, even if we don't
readily have the infrastructure or mechanism to make the best use of
the captured knowledge yet (at the time the knowledge was captured)
... but presumable, better access tools and mechanisms will be devised
and implemented to help us get better utilization of the captured
knowledge down the road. (08)
3. Michael et al., I hope the above makes the case for why we want to
keep the default to "reply-to" list. Please bear with me, if I may so
request. (09)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (010)
On 3/5/07, Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter - I raised this issue over a year ago.
>
> Is there any way to change the default behavior?
>
> Or perhaps, there are good reasons why you prefer to leave it as it is.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ==========================
> Michael Uschold
> M&CT, Phantom Works
> 425 373-2845
> michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx
> ========================== (011)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uschold, Michael F
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:15 PM
> To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] FW: Fractal communities: Was:
> Richsemanticsand expressiveness
>
> A perfect example of why it is IMHO a BAD idea to have the REPLY key
> select the whole group, rather than the sender.
>
> A more common example is that it is rather a pain to reply to the actual
> sender, you have to delete the address, and find the sender's address.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> ==========================
> Michael Uschold
> M&CT, Phantom Works
> 425 373-2845
> michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==========================
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go
> to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html (012)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 9:23 PM
> To: Ontology Summit 2007 Forum
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] FW: Fractal communities: Was: Rich
> semanticsand expressiveness
>
> Leo,
>
> I'm won't say this in public, but I find Tim's remarks as hopelessly
> clueless.
>
> He may be a knight, and he did a good job in putting together some
> off-the-shelf technologies in 1991, but the notation for the semantic
> web hasn't yet reached the sophistication of the 1950s version of LISP.
>
> It's so frustrating to see this incredible amount of money going down
> the toilet in the naive hope that if 6 cooks spoil the pot, maybe
> 6,000,000 cooks will improve it.
>
> John (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (014)
|