[open-science] List etiquette on long threads (was Open Science Anthology published)
pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Tue Jan 28 19:44:48 UTC 2014
It's also worth pointing out that there was no need for cross-posting to
two lists (Yes, I was guilty). The last > 50% had no primary relation to
science and it could be off-putting for people wanting to get a feel of how
to start discussions there.
But since there's lots of enthusiasm I'm posting another (topical)
thread.... on content-mining.
on the appropriate list:
where we can discuss Elsevier's announcement on content mining
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Jenny Molloy <jenny.molloy at okfn.org> wrote:
> Hi All
> Just a couple of list etiquette points
> 1) We were far away from the subject line in the previous thread, if those
> starting new topics could change this to something more relevant and
> reference the original subject it is much easier for subscribers to follow
> (or not!) and later to find topics in the list archive. The previous
> discussion could have been several distinct threads.
> 2) There are obviously strong personalities on this list and for that we
> are very grateful because it makes for lively discussion about an area
> where there is still considerable debate and a lot of thinking to do
> (that's why we're all here!). In general you're great at self-regulation
> but please bear in mind that if only a few people are contributing and
> headway is not being made for whatever reason, it may be time to politely
> discontinue, take discussions off-list or start a new thread on a more
> constructive topic, citing this reason.
> Thanks very much!
> open-science mailing list
> open-science at lists.okfn.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the open-science