NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
There have been several suggestions to change (hopefully improve) our (the netcdf group's) communication method(s). As I listen in, I lean more and more to the notion of providing multiple services. I particularly liked Lloyd Treinish's suggestion for two levels of netcdfgroup mail. So I embellish slightly and suggest: 1) Limited netcdfgroup service be provided via monitored _mail_ on which only announcements of general interest and perhaps summaries of particularly interesting _discussions_ are posted to subscribers - a sort of netCDF.announcements. 2) Full netcdfgroup service be provided as a Newsgroup with the _option_ to receive the traffic as mail. While true that a certain amount of trash will show up on a Newsgroup, it has been my experience that narrowly defined Newsgroups with a high percentage of serious correspondents (us exactly!!) do not provide a fertile environment for random noise generators. Also, many serious Newsgroups monitor themselves and do not place an extra burden on an official monitor, such as UCAR. Silly and irrelevant postings to such Newsgroups (comp.lang.eiffel, comp.lang.smalltalk, and comp.object come to mind quickly) get _FLAMED_ immediately by the general readership - informing the miscreants of their transgressions and inviting them to cease forthwith to garbage up the (netcdfgroup) ether. 3) The traffic from 1) and 2) be provided for _some time_ as archived files available via anonymous ftp as a service to those who join us downstream and want to get up to speed and to those forced to abandon their internet connections long enough to miss a stretch of traffic. It is difficult to know when a discussion such as this has peaked, but certainly we are approaching the point of diminishing returns. Do we hear a hue and cry for the administrators to call a halt while they estimate the effort to implement various suggestions, and then propose a vote on a specific (set of) proposal(s) which they are willing to support? I'm for that. - Mike **************** Mike DeVaney ****************** * Pacific Northwest Laboratory * (509) 375-2435 * * Battelle Boulevard m/s K1-87 * FAX (509) 375-6631 * * Richland, WA 99352 * dm_devaney@xxxxxxx * ********************************************************
netcdfgroup archives: