[Rd] requesting a new SIG mailing list

[Mauricio Zambrano-Bigiarini]

On 16/02/12 12:51, Sarah Goslee wrote:
> Dear Martin,
>
> Thank you for confirming what I'd already suspected
> about the mailing list software.

What a pity that is not possible, but thank you very much Martin for 
confirming and explaining why is not possible.

>
> I've added hydrology explicitly to the list description, and
> hope that the hydrologists find it a welcoming home. We've
> got a solid core of participants, so R users should
> find it a useful resource.
>

It is decided then.
Thank you very much Sarah for adding hydrology to the description of the 
R-sig-ecology mailing list:

"The purpose of R-sig-ecology is two-fold. First, we want to provide a 
discussion forum for those analyzing ecological and environmental data 
with R, including but not limited to vegetation, soils and hydrology. 
Second, we want to encourage R users of all ability and experience to 
participate so that we may grow the community of ecologists and 
environmental scientists that use R."


Thank you all for taking part in this discussion. I'll start spreading 
the voice among colleagues.

I hope Dominik may mention this mailing list in the EGU 2012 short 
course "Hydrological Analysis in R":
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2012/session/10635


All the best for the enhanced R-sig-ecology mailing list.

Mauricio Zambrano-Bigiarini

-- 
=======================================================
FLOODS Action
Water Resources Unit (H01)
Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES)
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)
webinfo    : http://floods.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
=======================================================
DISCLAIMER:
"The views expressed are purely those of the writer
and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating
an official position of the European Commission."
=======================================================
Linux user #454569 -- Ubuntu user #17469
=======================================================
"The greatest inspiration is often born of desperation."
(Comer Cotrell)

> Sarah
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:39 AM, Martin Maechler
> <maechler at stat.math.ethz.ch>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm the "site maintainer" of the R-SIG-... at r-project.org mailing
>> lists (and back from vacations).
>>
>>>>>>> Sarah Goslee<sarah.goslee at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>      on Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:16:01 -0500 writes:
>>
>>     >  Hi all,
>>     >>  It would be great if Sara of someone of the maintainers
>>     >>  of the r-sig-ecology list could add that info to the info page.
>>
>>     >  I'm talking with the other maintainer about revising both
>>     >  the short and the long descriptions.
>>
>>     >>  I think that r-sig-env would be much more intuitive for
>>     >>  environmental scientists coming from fields different
>>     >>  from ecology, but I don't think it is possible to change
>>     >>  the name of an existing mailing list.
>>
>> yes, that would be only doable with much effort,
>> and (unless even more effort is put in) it would invalidate all
>> current links to the current archives etc.
>>
>>     >>  However, I'm wondering if it would be possible to create
>>     >>  an alias termed 'r-sig-env' to 'r-sig-ecology' ?, in
>>     >>  order to make the name of the list more intuitive for
>>     >>  environmental scientists but without disturbing the
>>     >>  current users.
>>
>>     >  I don't know that there is any mechanism for doing either
>>     >  of those things.  Changing the name would be disruptive,
>>     >  and I don't know of an alias option.
>>
>> there is none, on the mailing list level.
>> On the mail server side, I could create such aliases,
>> but then these would only apply to e-mail addresses and the ML
>> software would still "speak" of the official ML name...
>>
>> Given all the issues and opinions heard so far, I'd also
>> propose trying to have hydrologists and other env.scientists
>> join the r-sig-ecology for the time being.
>>
>> Brian Ripley has already mentioned the very important point,
>> that there's some often non-negligible admin overhead for each
>> list, and I can add that indeed, we have had several lists that
>> always remained too small and so never "started flying".
>>
>
>