This file contains the anonymized replies to the queries on a Biomch-L policy change proposal as suggested below. The From: fields in the replies have been replaced by the subscription entry date of the replier, in the format year.day, where year = 89 ... 92, and day = 1 ... 366. Signatures have been removed, too, and a few identifying statements have been modified. Also, clearly personal remarks have been removed. Eindhoven/Nijmegen, NL, 1992-05-18 Herman J. Woltring Final version: 1992-05-24, 07:45 MET -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 17 May 92 12:41:00 N From: "H.J. Woltring, fax/tel +31.40.413 744" Subject: Biomch-L profile: Send=Editor, Editor=some@one.dom,(Biomch-L) Sender: Biomechanics and Movement Science listserver To: Multiple recipients of Dear Biomch-L readers, Having seen recently a number of (in my mind) inappropriate postings onto Biomch-L from non-subscribers, this is to sollicit comments from the reader- ship on a tentative and experimental policy change. At present, the Biomch-L profile has Send= Public, and no Editors: anyone can post a message onto the list, whether or not a subscriber. An alter- native would be to use Send= Private, i.e., for registered subscribers only. This would mean that postings from non-subscribed addresses (*including* unregistered aliases!) would bounce back to the poster with a message that (s)he is not authorized to post the message. For the moderators, this is relatively easy, since they will not be informed, but for readers who inadvertedly use another address, or whose mailer s/w, gateways etc. have been changed, this could be an annoyance. An additional option is to declare a first Editor and all subscribers as co-editors, via the options Send= Editor and Editor= some@one.dom,(Biomch-L); I understand that all registered subscribers can post in this way from their registered Biomch-L address, whele rejected postings are diverted to the some@one.dom address for the first editor's consideration; the poster is notified of this fact. In this way, the moderators can split their tasks: conventional delivery errors (failing destination addresses) are sent to the active list owner(s), while rejected transmissions are sent to the designated, first editor; I would be happy to assume an editorial task for a trial period of, say 2 weeks or one month, after which Krystyna, Ton and I would make a more definitive decision. Subscription to Biomch-L will remain OPEN, though, that is, there is no prior control on who whishes to sign onto or off Biomch-L. The policy is merely intended to minimize distributions of mass mailings and of uninten- tional postings as we had a few days ago. Before changing the profile of Biomch-L, I'd like to sollicit some comments on this proposal, to be sent to me directly, not to the list: (1) Do you feel that there are too many inappropriate postings onto Biomch-L? (2) If so, could you specify those, and whether you can you live with them? (3) Would you prefer Send= Private or Send= Editor as described above? (4) Would you rather see that the Editor is just some@one.dom, so that even the subscribers cannot post directly (N.B.: I am not a candidate for that type of editorship! There are many lists, though, in which postings are bundled on a weekly basis, and then sent out by the editor(s)). (5) Any other comments will be welcome, too; for example, I am a relatively active poster, and I would be grateful for feedback on the quality and quantity of my items. I'll summarize these responses (anonymously), and post the result. Thanks for your attention, Herman J. Woltring Date: Sun, 17 May 92 15:22:37 EST From: 91.233 Subject: inappropriate postings (1) Yes, I feel that lately there have been too many inappropriate postings on the Biomch-L list. (2) Examples: The one from Guadalajara (Mexico), the one from Saudi Arabia, the one we just got from Springer Verlag. I could live with them, but I would rather not!! (3) Send=Private or Send=Editor could both work. However, the latter would require a lot of effort on someone's part, so I think we should try send=private first. (4) Subscribers should be able to post right away. Keep up the good work! xxx.xxx Date: Mon, 18 May 1992 01:23 CDT From: 91.051 Subject: RE: Biomch-L profile: Send=Editor, Editor=some@one.dom,(Biomch-L) I have no comment on 1, 2, 4, and 5. But, I do think that Send=Editor is a good option. xxx.xxx Date: 18 May 92 10:18:34 MET-1METDST From: 92.037 (changed address) Subject: Reply SEND=EDITOR In your posting of last Sunday you requested some reply, so I will give some. (1) During my membership of BIOMCH-L I have noticed that biomechanics contains a whole bundle of different disciplines. This results in very diverse postings, however all on the subject of biomechanics. Since I myself am only working on a small piece of the biomechanics- cake only few of the postings are realy of my concern, while others are merely interesting to read (although often quite heavy for me, like the 3D discussion) and some others are just boring but easily deleted. What I'm trying to say is that I haven't even really noticed those inappropriate postings among the lot (or they must have been the boring ones). (2) Like I said, those items are difficult to specify, but I can live with them. (3) I don't know whether SEND=PRIVATE gives a lot of difficulties, but SEND= EDITOR seems a good alternative. (4) No ! (5) I envy the quality and admire the quantity of your items although they are usually not really relevant for my own line of research. I'm coping at the moment with the more "plain" kind of biomechanics like analysis of pelvic and lumbar motion rhythm recorded by electro- mechanical inclinometres. With kind regards, xxx.xxx Date: Mon, 18 May 92 08:30:10 EDT From: 90.289 Subject: RE: Biomch-L profile: Send=Editor, Editor=some@one.dom,(Biomch-L) In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 17 May 92 12:41:00 N In reply to your question about inappropriate postings, I must say "yes" - there are far too many items that are not about biomechanics. I dread coming back from a few days away, as I know I will have to spend hours reading and discarding irrelevant postings - not a lot of fun at 2400 baud! I would suggest that you went for the SEND=PRIVATE option, restricting postings to list members. Although it is easy to join the list, I think that it would at least reduce the number of irrelevant postings. As to your own postings, a lot of them seem to deal more with networks than with biomechanics - I think perhaps some of them could be dispensed with, too! Sorry if I sound negative - I think BIOMCH-L is great, and just want to see the quality of contributions maintained, and not diluted with irrelevant stuff!! All the best, xxx.xxx Date: Mon, 18 May 92 09:29:32 EDT From: 91.190 Subject: RE: Biomch-L profile: Send=Editor, Editor=some@one.dom,(Biomch-L) The postings as such are fine. What is troublesome are the replies, which can be pretty boring is one is not interested in following the dialogue. Some control over the replies, such that they only go to the editor, or to interested emailers who reply to the editor, would be better. This way we would not have to go through lots of email which is not relevant. I know the editor could set up an email file with the responder's addresses, and act as the central clearing house. Or is it possible to have a temporary list server set up which messages could be sent and then distributed? Not being a expert on the email waves, I am not sure what can be EASILY set up. I do enjoy receiving your email and announcements. This is a window on the world which needs to be continued. Postings from other individuals would also be good. But general discussion groups should be separated out. Regards, xxx.xxx Date: Mon, 18 May 92 09:33:43 -0400 From: 91.117 Subject: RE: Biomch-L profile: Send=Editor, Editor=some@one.dom,(Biomch-L) In response to your request for feedback on the above issue, here's my input: (1) Yes (2) Many of your own postings, which have little, if anything, to do with biomechanics seem inappropriate. (3) I'm in favour of subscribers freely sending messages to one another without intervention from the editors. Anyone else (i.e. non- subscribers) should go through the editors. (4) See (3) above. (5) It seems to me, that you are offering a wonderful service to the Biomechanics community (...!). As mentioned above in (2), many postings are not really of interest to me (and, I suspect, other Biomch-L subscribers). My final comment is that you should keep up the good work but please give careful consideration before sending out some of your announcements. xxx.xxx Date: Fri, 19 May 95 11:47:19 -0400 From: 92.086 Subject: survey Some comments on your questions: >(1) Do you feel that there are too many inappropriate postings onto Biomch-L? No. >(2) If so, could you specify those, and whether you can you live with them? I can live with all of them. >(3) Would you prefer Send= Private or Send= Editor as described above? Either would be fine. I can see the potential problem with non-subscribers broadcasting to lists, even if it is a conference notice they feel should be remotely interesting to list members. >(4) Would you rather see that the Editor is just some@one.dom, so that even > the subscribers cannot post directly (N.B.: I am not a candidate for that > ype of editorship! There are many lists, though, in which postings are > bundled on a weekly basis, and then sent out by the editor(s))? Of the several research-oriented lists I follow, I see a constant battle on "open" lists. The signal to noise ratio can degrade when interlopers (probably more common in the US with our hacker culture), upper level undergraduates, and early graduate students take over and the list becomes a chat line. Some junior faculty then begin to complain that the volume is too high. Then someone says you can spool all the broadcasts for a week and look them over at your leisure. Often heated discussions over very interesting issues devolve into you said, no I didn't, back-and forths. The broader the discussion the more likely someone will come in and say the topic is not relevant to the field. Next, you can bet, in our "politically correct" times someone will rush in to say that no one should comment on what is signal and what is noise. Personally I do tire of riding the learning curve with those sending private notes to the list and others who are too lazy to proof their own typo-ridden communiques. Given the above I would not be surprised to see BIOMCH-L tighten the reigns. While I am not centrally involved in biomechanical eng I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in BIOMCH-L. It is clear that at some point the "players" in the field drop off if it gets too chatty. A counterpoint would be that it does seem to me that other moderated and un-moderated lists have more back-and-forth than BIOMCH-L. I tried, unsuccessfully, to engender some discussion with my .... posting a ... ago. So while some participants may have reached their "junk mail" quota I wonder if they say also feel the list is burdended with "inane" dialog. >(5) Any other comments will be welcome, too; for example, I am a relatively > active poster, and I would be grateful for feedback on the quality and > quantity of my items. I think summarizing the responses is quite appropriate. I greatly appreciate your postings on how to use BIOMCH-L, Internet, news on Internet, and confer- ences. - Yours xxx.xxx Date: Tue, 19 May 92 12:18:03 SST From: 91.027 To: Herman Well, some replies : about question (1) I think there are not too many inappropriate postings, (2) As such, I can live with it at the moment, (3) I think the present format or style for posting is fine, (4) I believe that there would be a big problem in finding someone who would be able to do it. I hope the above helps. Cheerio & regards xxx.xxx P.S. I hope that you will take into consideration that I am relatively new in Biomch-L. Date: Wed, 20 May 92 12:58:00 N From: "H.J. Woltring, fax/tel +31.40.413 744" Subject: Biomch-L profile questions/replies Sender: Biomechanics and Movement Science listserver Dear Biomch-L readers, Following my posting last Sunday, 8 replies were received to my questions. Since this seems hardly enough for summarizing purposes as originally plan- ned, I've anonymized them and stored them on the Biomch-L fileserver. It is a PRV (members only) file, retrievable with the command send PROFILE QUESTION BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@HEARN.BITNET or to LISTSERV@NIC.SURFNET.NL. Before Krystyna, Ton, and I make a decision on whether or not to change (tentatively) from "Send= Public" and no Editor to "Send= Editor" and "Editor= some@one.dom,(Biomch-L)", we'd like to make this information available to the readership in order to sollicit further replies -- as before, to be sent to me privately rather than onto the list. Two specific points: (1) One comment indicates that I put too many networking items onto the list. While this may be true for countries like the USA, there are many new coun- tries in Biomch-L for which email networking is largely Terra Incognita; also, many potentially interesting subscribers (e.g., Gait Labs in peripheral, non- university affiliated hospitals in the U.S.A.) are not in easy reach with institutional, networked computer centres; for those categories, providing networking information via other channels seems useful. Any comments on this? (2) Another comment addresses debates as we have had a number of times. The initial postings were thought to be fine, but follow-up items were thought better to be left off the list; they should be handled by means of a selected sub-list, through a case-specific editor. Any comments here, too? Looking forward to further reactions, Herman J. Woltring Date: Wed, 20 May 92 12:31 GMT From: 90.079 Subject: RE: Biomch-L profiles... To: With regard to your recent postings: particularly the 2 points highlighted by your most recent posting on the (dissappointing) reponse. Firstly I must confess to thinking that "I could leave that sort of thing to others" and since only 8 replies were received I felt I should respond. I agree wholeheartedly with the point you made about the critism of too many networking items on the list. In our research department here in ....... we are about to embark on a major project involving Gait Analysis analysing how both surgical intervention and/or new chemotherapy can enhance the movement of cerebral palsy children. Most of the people involved are surgeons and physicians and (to be quite frank) computers in general are an anathema to them, so any assistance given via the discussion lists is useful. Usually mail from the LISTSERVer is extracted then printed and circulated to the relevant groups. Similary follow-up items are extremely useful and act as a (somewhat tempo- rally displaced) discussion forum amongst interested groups. An example is the recent posting and subsequent follow-up items on the standardisation of kinematic data. This has proved extremely useful to my colleagues who are venturing into (relatively) unknown territory and are able to keep abreast of the latest topical items in the field. I hope my comments are of some use and please feel free to contact me should you require clarification etc. Incidentally we are setting up a ........ system from ............ for our Gait Analysis and have been in contact with Dr ......... from ............ who expressed an interest in the details of our research: this contact was made via the BIOMCH-L list and so acted as a useful channel to gain both advise and additional information. With Best Wishes xxxx.xxxx Date: Wed, 20 May 92 10:36-0400 From: 92.084 Subject: biomch-l postings To: woltring@HNYKUN53.BITNET Subject: biomch-l postings Ok ok I'm shamed into an answer - only eight replies in a few days? I have to tell you, I'm amazed at what a time sink networking can be (albeit a useful one...). Frankly, I'm one of those people who has no hesitation about the ERASE key, even though I get this guilty feeling that I could be passing on all this juicy information - some of it I do, most I don't. I just don't have the time. So, my feeling is that if a moderator is willing to put the effort into cross-postings and the like, I appreciate all the information I can see (and erase). I don't have to pay for my e-mail, being at a university (that may change in the future), and this is the only board I use right now. With regard to the debates, massive missiles get very tedious; *and* it is hard to see how people can be any different in print than they are in person. This type of board is an excellent forum for debate; I don't have a solution to whether the readership should/can shut down a few individuals passionately defending their views. That's all from me. Good luck with getting your responses. xxxx.xxxx Date: Wed, 20 May 92 11:20:30 -0500 From: 90.268 To: woltring@hnykun53.bitnet I'd like to comment on the points that you presented in your recent posting. First, regarding too much networking information being posted, I am not a big user of networks. The majority of the information I have received regarding proper use of networks has come from use of this list. I don't see a problem with "too much" information being presented. In fact, after seeing the inappropriate postings on some other lists, I believe networking information is quite useful in keeping the readership well informed of proper technique. Regarding the second comment, this medium is excellent for the exchange of ideas or the debate of controversial points. Assigning the debaters to a sub-list may leave many potential contributors, or individuals interested in the discussion even though they may not contribute, out in the cold. As a whole, I do not think there are too many inappropriate postings, at least not enough to warrant burdening someone to sort through them. For my part, deleting messages is very easy, which is what I do to messages that I think are inappropriate. Finally, I appreciate the work that you and your co-moderators do. I realize that this takes time away from other activities, but I hope that you feel gratification in a job that is appreciated and useful. xxxx.xxxx Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 10:14 EST From: 91.226 Subject: Comments To: woltring@NICI.KUN.NL At a very basic level I never met a subject I didn't like (with the possible exception of abstract maths). I'd far rather have a tray of stuff to choose from -- broad postings and cross postings and debates -- that gives the the choice of reading or not, keeping or not than the alternative which is a very narrowly selected/filtered/censored selection which, by its defining parameters narrows my access to the world. Further, I think your point about the inaccessibility institutions outside the US academic world, or similarly affluent types, is very important. I look forward to the impact e-mail/networking will have in flattening global power structures as Sproull and Kiesler and others have found it does in the corporate world. I get tired of the flaming and posturing that goes on on LSTOWN-L, but regard it as a basically healthy phenomenon. BIOMCH-L is a much more tidy list by comparison, but I would hate to have it become any narrower. Keep up the xposting! xxxx.xxxx Date: Wed, 20 May 92 15:00:12 EDT From: 91.224 (address change) Subject: replying to postings To: Herman Woltring One method for controlling the sometimes massive amount of replies that a particular posting can generate is to suggest that the reponders send the responses directly to the respondents via personal e-mail. Following a decent interval of time the author of the original message can post a concise summary of the issues at hand. The major drawback of this method is the denial of the general readership to actively participate in the discussion process, which is one of the major benefits of the list. Sincerely xxxx.xxxx Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 08:07:39 +1000 From: 91.036 Subject: RE: Biomch-L profile: Send=Editor, Editor=some@one.dom,(Biomch-L) To: WOLTRING@HNYKUN53.bitnet My feeling is that there are too many messages that appear on the Biomch-l list that are totally inappropriate and, quite frankly, are a waste of effort and time to read. My perference would be that the second option be instigated where there is some censorship but not completely so. Cheers, xxx.xxx Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 08:06 EST From: 91.115 Subject: Change list profile? To: woltring@hnykun53.bitnet I suspect there are two reasons you have only received a few responses to your questions concerning access to Biomch-l: most people are probably quite confortable with the way things are now, and secondly, they are a bit slow to respond, like me. On the first point, I find that the volume of traffic on the list is acceptable. I scan through most of it, and I can decide quite soon if I can delete it without reading all. The recent transgressions have not been annoying to me, and filtering them out does not yet seem justified. It would mean either missing them completely, or demanding more effort by moderators. If it gets worse, of course I would prefer your second option whereby moderators can review material submitted by non-members of the list to decide on whether it is appropriate. One suggestion I have is to remind everyone that a subject line is helpful to readers. I have noticed quite a number of postings (from non-members of the list primarily?) with the subject not stated. (Also, we still have a few people who don't know the difference between the list and the listserver. *Everyone* knows who they are!) If these comments are helpful, by all means add them to the archive file you are creating on this issue. With best wishes. xxxx.xxxx Date: Sun, 24 May 92 07:31:00 N From: "H.J. Woltring, fax/tel +31.40.413 744" > Subject: Biomch-L Profile Sender: Biomechanics and Movement Science listserver Dear Biomch-L readers, Following the receipt of a few more replies to my recent query regarding a possible Biomch-L profile change, Krystyna, Ton and I feel that there does not seem to be a strong interest in constraining the lists's "Send= Public" option into "Send= Editor" with "Editor= some@one.dom,(Biomch-L)". Thus, we intend to leave things as they are for the time being. If the number of inappropriate postings from non-subscribers should increase, we will reconsider this deci- sion. An anonimised collation of all notes received on this issue can be retrieved (PRV, i.e., subscribers only) with the one-line command SEND PROFILE QUESTION BIOMCH-L to LISTSERV@HEARN.BITNET or LISTSERV@NIC.SURFNET.NL. I should like to urge all of you, though, to use appropriate "Subject:" lines when posting something to the list, to facilitate your fellow-subscribers to scan their Index of all incoming email at any time. Thanks for your help, Krystyna Gielo Perczak, Ton van den Bogert, Herman J. Woltring