Re: Is it ok to use a morphic list for MathMorphs-Revival communications?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it ok to use a morphic list for MathMorphs-Revival communications?

Milan Zimmermann-2
A question about Morphic lists below:

On 2006 May 29 11:53, Serge Stinckwich wrote:
> Le 29 mai 06 à 18:02, Milan Zimmermann a écrit :
> > On 2006 May 29 03:35, Serge Stinckwich wrote:

<snip>

> Hum, yes a bit confuse ... maybe we could ask on the squeak-dev list
> why there is two lists ?

Ok, let me ask: There seem to be 2 Morphic lists: One linked from the Teams
site http://squeak.org/Community/Teams/ as Morphic Stewards:

http://discuss.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm-browse?list=morphic-splitters

        and another one that I cannot find on squeak.org

http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic

For the MathMorphs Revival effort, I suggested creating a list, then Serge
sugested we could ask the morphic list to carry the MathMorph Revival
communication there - which caused my confusion as to what list (because I
did not find the "morphic" list above on squeak.org).

So maybe the squeak-dev is the right forum for this question (s):

        - Is it general knowledge there are 2 morphic lists, and is it a good idea to
have 2
        - Is it ok to use one of them for the MathMorphs revival communication, or
better to ask to create a new list for MathMorphs revival?

Regarding the second question, we could keep communicating via private email,
but that makes harder for others to join, and it seems it is good to have a
public record of the changes and discussions.

Thanks for any suggestions, Milan


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it ok to use a morphic list for MathMorphs-Revivalcommunications?

Juan Vuletich
Hi Milan,

I kind of leaded both groups. The Morphic-Splitters group became the
official Morphic Stewards. So the Morphic-Splitters list is obsolete. I
don't know if it should be killed, or be left for archival purposes...

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milan Zimmermann" <[hidden email]>
To: "Serge Stinckwich" <[hidden email]>;
<[hidden email]>; "Lic.Edgar J.De Cleene"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Is it ok to use a morphic list for
MathMorphs-Revivalcommunications?


>A question about Morphic lists below:
>
> On 2006 May 29 11:53, Serge Stinckwich wrote:
>> Le 29 mai 06 à 18:02, Milan Zimmermann a écrit :
>> > On 2006 May 29 03:35, Serge Stinckwich wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Hum, yes a bit confuse ... maybe we could ask on the squeak-dev list
>> why there is two lists ?
>
> Ok, let me ask: There seem to be 2 Morphic lists: One linked from the
> Teams
> site http://squeak.org/Community/Teams/ as Morphic Stewards:
>
> http://discuss.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm-browse?list=morphic-splitters
>
> and another one that I cannot find on squeak.org
>
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
>
> For the MathMorphs Revival effort, I suggested creating a list, then Serge
> sugested we could ask the morphic list to carry the MathMorph Revival
> communication there - which caused my confusion as to what list (because I
> did not find the "morphic" list above on squeak.org).
>
> So maybe the squeak-dev is the right forum for this question (s):
>
> - Is it general knowledge there are 2 morphic lists, and is it a good idea
> to
> have 2
> - Is it ok to use one of them for the MathMorphs revival communication, or
> better to ask to create a new list for MathMorphs revival?
>
> Regarding the second question, we could keep communicating via private
> email,
> but that makes harder for others to join, and it seems it is good to have
> a
> public record of the changes and discussions.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions, Milan
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/348 - Release Date: 5/25/2006
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it ok to use a morphic list for MathMorphs-Revivalcommunications?

Milan Zimmermann-2
Hi Juan,

thanks for commenting. I now think we probably use the original math morphs
list (not on squeak.org) to communicate as there are likely still other
interested people subscribed there. But if that turns out not possible, let
us leave morphic-splitters in existence for now if that's ok.

Milan
On 2006 May 31 11:36, Juan Vuletich wrote:

> Hi Milan,
>
> I kind of leaded both groups. The Morphic-Splitters group became the
> official Morphic Stewards. So the Morphic-Splitters list is obsolete. I
> don't know if it should be killed, or be left for archival purposes...
>
> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milan Zimmermann" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Serge Stinckwich" <[hidden email]>;
> <[hidden email]>; "Lic.Edgar J.De Cleene"
> <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 5:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Is it ok to use a morphic list for
> MathMorphs-Revivalcommunications?
>
> >A question about Morphic lists below:
> >
> > On 2006 May 29 11:53, Serge Stinckwich wrote:
> >> Le 29 mai 06 à 18:02, Milan Zimmermann a écrit :
> >> > On 2006 May 29 03:35, Serge Stinckwich wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Hum, yes a bit confuse ... maybe we could ask on the squeak-dev list
> >> why there is two lists ?
> >
> > Ok, let me ask: There seem to be 2 Morphic lists: One linked from the
> > Teams
> > site http://squeak.org/Community/Teams/ as Morphic Stewards:
> >
> > http://discuss.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm-browse?list=morphic-spl
> >itters
> >
> > and another one that I cannot find on squeak.org
> >
> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
> >
> > For the MathMorphs Revival effort, I suggested creating a list, then
> > Serge sugested we could ask the morphic list to carry the MathMorph
> > Revival communication there - which caused my confusion as to what list
> > (because I did not find the "morphic" list above on squeak.org).
> >
> > So maybe the squeak-dev is the right forum for this question (s):
> >
> > - Is it general knowledge there are 2 morphic lists, and is it a good
> > idea to
> > have 2
> > - Is it ok to use one of them for the MathMorphs revival communication,
> > or better to ask to create a new list for MathMorphs revival?
> >
> > Regarding the second question, we could keep communicating via private
> > email,
> > but that makes harder for others to join, and it seems it is good to have
> > a
> > public record of the changes and discussions.
> >
> > Thanks for any suggestions, Milan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/348 - Release Date: 5/25/2006

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it ok to use a morphic list for MathMorphs-Revivalcommunications?

Juan Vuletich
Ok.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milan Zimmermann" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Cc: "Juan Vuletich" <[hidden email]>; "Serge Stinckwich"
<[hidden email]>; "Lic.Edgar J.De Cleene"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: Is it ok to use a morphic list for
MathMorphs-Revivalcommunications?


> Hi Juan,
>
> thanks for commenting. I now think we probably use the original math
> morphs
> list (not on squeak.org) to communicate as there are likely still other
> interested people subscribed there. But if that turns out not possible,
> let
> us leave morphic-splitters in existence for now if that's ok.
>
> Milan
> On 2006 May 31 11:36, Juan Vuletich wrote:
>> Hi Milan,
>>
>> I kind of leaded both groups. The Morphic-Splitters group became the
>> official Morphic Stewards. So the Morphic-Splitters list is obsolete. I
>> don't know if it should be killed, or be left for archival purposes...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Juan Vuletich
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Milan Zimmermann" <[hidden email]>
>> To: "Serge Stinckwich" <[hidden email]>;
>> <[hidden email]>; "Lic.Edgar J.De Cleene"
>> <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 5:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: Is it ok to use a morphic list for
>> MathMorphs-Revivalcommunications?
>>
>> >A question about Morphic lists below:
>> >
>> > On 2006 May 29 11:53, Serge Stinckwich wrote:
>> >> Le 29 mai 06 à 18:02, Milan Zimmermann a écrit :
>> >> > On 2006 May 29 03:35, Serge Stinckwich wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> Hum, yes a bit confuse ... maybe we could ask on the squeak-dev list
>> >> why there is two lists ?
>> >
>> > Ok, let me ask: There seem to be 2 Morphic lists: One linked from the
>> > Teams
>> > site http://squeak.org/Community/Teams/ as Morphic Stewards:
>> >
>> > http://discuss.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm-browse?list=morphic-spl
>> >itters
>> >
>> > and another one that I cannot find on squeak.org
>> >
>> > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
>> >
>> > For the MathMorphs Revival effort, I suggested creating a list, then
>> > Serge sugested we could ask the morphic list to carry the MathMorph
>> > Revival communication there - which caused my confusion as to what list
>> > (because I did not find the "morphic" list above on squeak.org).
>> >
>> > So maybe the squeak-dev is the right forum for this question (s):
>> >
>> > - Is it general knowledge there are 2 morphic lists, and is it a good
>> > idea to
>> > have 2
>> > - Is it ok to use one of them for the MathMorphs revival communication,
>> > or better to ask to create a new list for MathMorphs revival?
>> >
>> > Regarding the second question, we could keep communicating via private
>> > email,
>> > but that makes harder for others to join, and it seems it is good to
>> > have
>> > a
>> > public record of the changes and discussions.
>> >
>> > Thanks for any suggestions, Milan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.1/348 - Release Date:
>> > 5/25/2006
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/352 - Release Date: 5/30/2006
>
>