Answering questions on mailing lists & general mailing list notes
A few suggestions about answering questions on mailing lists like this one since we seem to have 'done' asking them: When providing references, an author name is good, a specific citation is better, a citation with a URL is better still and a citation with a brief synopsis of why the citation is of particular relevance is best of all* If you suggest a book might have something to say on a subject and can provide a specific page reference or two that would help a lot - particularly when the book is long and the mention is just a passing one. Though of course any helpful response is better than none at all! And four more general notes about this list in particular 1) please let's not discourage questioners. We were all first time posters once. If you want to help by providing advice on how best to post perhaps it could be done privately directly to the poster in question so they don't feel publicly singled out? Or perhaps we could send a generic message monthly with a summary of the AoIR's rules of conduct together with some 'best practice' tips? 2) Please make sure (for your own sake as much as anyone's!) that your private responses are sent directly to the person and not to the list? If you hit 'reply' any response will go to the list 3) Similarly, if you are posting a response to something you read via email digest please copy the subject line and put it into your own subject line rather than making the subject re: AoIR mailing list digest X and 4) Please please please remember to chop off the previous email discussion from your response except insofar as the rest of the conversation is needed to explain your own contribution. I and many others read this list in digest form and it is much harder to read when you have to end up reading the same messages quoted half a dozen times in a single digest. * Actually best of all in my case at least is if you can email the relevant citations in Endnote format or some other popular bibliographic software format but this mailing list doesn't support attachments. --- David Brake, Doctoral Student in Media and Communications, London School of Economics & Political Science <http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/media@lse/study/ mPhilPhDMediaAndCommunications.htm> Also see http://davidbrake.org/ (home page), http://blog.org/ (personal weblog) and http://get.to/lseblog (academic groupblog) Author of Dealing With E-Mail - <http://davidbrake.org/ dealingwithemail/> callto://DavidBrake (Skype.com's Instant Messenger and net phone)
are we thinking of email lists as formal academic structures or interactive conversational "spaces"? or both? r -- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php
Both - and much much more. In my case, anyway. M-H On 16/12/2006, at 8:21 AM, radhika gajjala wrote:
are we thinking of email lists as formal academic structures or interactive conversational "spaces"?
or both?
On 12/15/06 4:02 PM, "David Brake" <d.r.brake@lse.ac.uk> wrote: Good points to mention, David.
2) Please make sure (for your own sake as much as anyone's!) that your private responses are sent directly to the person and not to the list? If you hit 'reply' any response will go to the list
As a list admin for several lists myself, may I suggest that our illustrious list admins here consider changing the default AIR-L "reply-to" so that such replies go directly to the sender of the original note as opposed to the entire list? That way, if you hit "reply-to-all" you know everyone will get it, but if you hit "reply-to" (as most folks do automatically in responding to e-mail) it will only go to the sender of the note you're responding to. Granted, we *want* to facilitate discussion here, but it's just a suggestion offered up for consideration. I know in my case a few times I've sent stuff meant as a reply to someone and watched it going to everyone. :( Many times, both here and elsewhere, I go so far as to place something like "Off-List" in the subject line so my intended recipient(s) know it's not coming from the list. Anyway, just a thought. -rf
As a list admin for several lists myself, may I suggest that our illustrious list admins here consider changing the default AIR-L "reply-to" so that such replies go directly to the sender of the original note as opposed to the entire list? That way, if you hit "reply-to-all" you know everyone will get it, but if you hit "reply-to" (as most folks do automatically in responding to e-mail) it will only go to the sender of the note you're responding to. Granted, we *want* to facilitate discussion here, but it's just a suggestion offered up for consideration.
I feel pretty much obligated to post this link - you've probably seen it before: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html --elijah
This would be... one of the situations where .... if I were a list admin... I would say 'over my dead body'. Because air-l is not about the individual benefit, though we do wish to benefit everyone that contributes and participates, but air-l has been about the group of interested parties. changing it to reply-to sender would take the communal spirit of the work away and make it into a request-for- help , which while a good format, is not the sort of thing that air-l has been, nor the thing that it is at its best. At its best it is a group of people working together to establish a body of knowledge that we all share in common, and thus the 'common' or communal space overrides the individual. at least, ... that is why we made an organization didn't we? On Dec 15, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Richard Forno wrote:
On 12/15/06 4:02 PM, "David Brake" <d.r.brake@lse.ac.uk> wrote:
Good points to mention, David.
2) Please make sure (for your own sake as much as anyone's!) that your private responses are sent directly to the person and not to the list? If you hit 'reply' any response will go to the list
As a list admin for several lists myself, may I suggest that our illustrious list admins here consider changing the default AIR-L "reply-to" so that such replies go directly to the sender of the original note as opposed to the entire list? That way, if you hit "reply-to-all" you know everyone will get it, but if you hit "reply-to" (as most folks do automatically in responding to e-mail) it will only go to the sender of the note you're responding to. Granted, we *want* to facilitate discussion here, but it's just a suggestion offered up for consideration.
I know in my case a few times I've sent stuff meant as a reply to someone and watched it going to everyone. :( Many times, both here and elsewhere, I go so far as to place something like "Off-List" in the subject line so my intended recipient(s) know it's not coming from the list.
Anyway, just a thought.
-rf
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
jeremy hunsinger Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com () ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
I respectfully (as I've done in the past) disagree. This suggestion (to change the default reply setting) gets floated every year or so, usually after some dreadfully embarrassing mishap where a clearly private message has gone to the entire list. If we are concerned about the effects a public reproach has on participation, think about the effects of one of these! I think the AOIR membership is technically sophisticated enough to click "reply all" when they have a message that should go to the entire list, and to suggest that "changing it to reply-to sender would take the communal spirit of the work away and make it into a request-for- help" is to suggest otherwise. Clearly the expectation among users is reply goes to sender, reply all goes to all, so why should AOIR users have to think about how AOIR is different every time they wish to post? As far as the effect on the well-being of the list, which I share as a concern, I believe that messages that unnecessarily and unintentionally go to all has a detrimental effect, both in terms of the examples of public humiliation I give above as well as contributing to a worsened signal to noise ratio which we've all observed. In contrast, as I see it, the worst case scenario of a default reply to sender is that a message meant for the list has to be resent once the poster realizes this. Perhaps we could try it out for a while and see what effects, if any, changing the default has. -Nicole On Dec 15, 2006, at 10:13 PM, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
This would be... one of the situations where .... if I were a list admin... I would say 'over my dead body'. Because air-l is not about the individual benefit, though we do wish to benefit everyone that contributes and participates, but air-l has been about the group of interested parties. changing it to reply-to sender would take the communal spirit of the work away and make it into a request-for- help , which while a good format, is not the sort of thing that air-l has been, nor the thing that it is at its best. At its best it is a group of people working together to establish a body of knowledge that we all share in common, and thus the 'common' or communal space overrides the individual. at least, ... that is why we made an organization didn't we? On Dec 15, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Richard Forno wrote:
On 12/15/06 4:02 PM, "David Brake" <d.r.brake@lse.ac.uk> wrote:
Good points to mention, David.
2) Please make sure (for your own sake as much as anyone's!) that your private responses are sent directly to the person and not to the list? If you hit 'reply' any response will go to the list
As a list admin for several lists myself, may I suggest that our illustrious list admins here consider changing the default AIR-L "reply-to" so that such replies go directly to the sender of the original note as opposed to the entire list? That way, if you hit "reply-to-all" you know everyone will get it, but if you hit "reply-to" (as most folks do automatically in responding to e-mail) it will only go to the sender of the note you're responding to. Granted, we *want* to facilitate discussion here, but it's just a suggestion offered up for consideration.
I know in my case a few times I've sent stuff meant as a reply to someone and watched it going to everyone. :( Many times, both here and elsewhere, I go so far as to place something like "Off-List" in the subject line so my intended recipient(s) know it's not coming from the list.
Anyway, just a thought.
-rf
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http:// aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
jeremy hunsinger Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Well, let me respectfully disagree with Nicole's respectful disagreement with Jeremy. The logic that suggests AOIR members should be technically adept enough to click "reply all" cuts both ways, after all, insofar as AOIR members should also be savvy enough not to send private messages to publci lists. Perhaps more to the point, though, is that the list is a space intended for dialogue and exchange -- i.e., a multi-directional conversation -- not just one-way announcements. It makes perfect sense to have an announcement-oriented list work so that "reply" directs any responses offlist. But for a discussion-oriented list, such a setting places an extra -- and unncessary -- burden on people who actually want to use the list for its intended purpose. Put a slightly different way, either way, there's inevitably going to be a burden placed on *someone* to remember how the list is configured if/when they choose to respond to an onlist message: either people who want to reply offlist have to remember to use the original sender's address, or people who want to reply onlist have to remember to use the list's address. Given that this list is routinely used for back-and-forth exchanges -- and that misdirected private messages (however embarrassing those might be) are the exception, rather than the rule -- changing the list's current setting means that the majority of people posting to the list would have to do extra work to protect a minority of listmembers from having to do the exact same work. Why should we make it harder (even if only slightly) for people to use the list the way it's intended to be used -- especially when it's less of a burden overall to ask people to be careful to avoid MISusing the list? Cheers Gil Nicole Ellison wrote:
I respectfully (as I've done in the past) disagree. This suggestion (to change the default reply setting) gets floated every year or so, usually after some dreadfully embarrassing mishap where a clearly private message has gone to the entire list. If we are concerned about the effects a public reproach has on participation, think about the effects of one of these! I think the AOIR membership is technically sophisticated enough to click "reply all" when they have a message that should go to the entire list, and to suggest that "changing it to reply-to sender would take the communal spirit of the work away and make it into a request-for- help" is to suggest otherwise. Clearly the expectation among users is reply goes to sender, reply all goes to all, so why should AOIR users have to think about how AOIR is different every time they wish to post? As far as the effect on the well-being of the list, which I share as a concern, I believe that messages that unnecessarily and unintentionally go to all has a detrimental effect, both in terms of the examples of public humiliation I give above as well as contributing to a worsened signal to noise ratio which we've all observed. In contrast, as I see it, the worst case scenario of a default reply to sender is that a message meant for the list has to be resent once the poster realizes this. Perhaps we could try it out for a while and see what effects, if any, changing the default has.
-Nicole
On Dec 15, 2006, at 10:13 PM, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
This would be... one of the situations where .... if I were a list admin... I would say 'over my dead body'. Because air-l is not about the individual benefit, though we do wish to benefit everyone that contributes and participates, but air-l has been about the group of interested parties. changing it to reply-to sender would take the communal spirit of the work away and make it into a request-for- help , which while a good format, is not the sort of thing that air-l has been, nor the thing that it is at its best. At its best it is a group of people working together to establish a body of knowledge that we all share in common, and thus the 'common' or communal space overrides the individual. at least, ... that is why we made an organization didn't we? On Dec 15, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Richard Forno wrote:
On 12/15/06 4:02 PM, "David Brake" <d.r.brake@lse.ac.uk> wrote:
Good points to mention, David.
2) Please make sure (for your own sake as much as anyone's!) that your private responses are sent directly to the person and not to the list? If you hit 'reply' any response will go to the list
As a list admin for several lists myself, may I suggest that our illustrious list admins here consider changing the default AIR-L "reply-to" so that such replies go directly to the sender of the original note as opposed to the entire list? That way, if you hit "reply-to-all" you know everyone will get it, but if you hit "reply-to" (as most folks do automatically in responding to e-mail) it will only go to the sender of the note you're responding to. Granted, we *want* to facilitate discussion here, but it's just a suggestion offered up for consideration.
I know in my case a few times I've sent stuff meant as a reply to someone and watched it going to everyone. :( Many times, both here and elsewhere, I go so far as to place something like "Off-List" in the subject line so my intended recipient(s) know it's not coming from the list.
Anyway, just a thought.
-rf
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http:// aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
jeremy hunsinger Assistant Professor Pratt Institute www.cddc.vt.edu wiki.tmttlt.com www.tmttlt.com
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html mail /\ - against microsoft attachments http://www.stswiki.org/ sts wiki http://cfp.learning-inquiry.info/ Learning Inquiry-the journal http://transdisciplinarystudies.tmttlt.com/ Transdisciplinary Studies:the book series
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Gilbert B. Rodman wrote:
... Put a slightly different way, either way, there's inevitably going to be a burden placed on *someone* to remember how the list is configured if/when they choose to respond to an onlist message: ...
What's less harmful? A message intended to be public accidentally sent to only one person, or a message intended to be private sent to a public list? No matter how technically savvy we all may be, we are humans and humans sometimes make mistakes. We've all done it, if not on this list, on some other. If the list were reconfigured, the consequences of those mistakes would be minimized, and that would be better for everyone. The "cost" to the list of such a change would also be minimal. We all know how to resend a message if we discover it only went to one person rather than to everyone. -- Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Communication Studies Luther College, Decorah, Iowa USA http://academic.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain
I can go either way on this but being "risk averse" as my kids are always telling me, it seems that the rare but sometimes very embarrassing mis-posts can easily be averted with a simple click. Hurt feelings can result from such posts. There is community value in helping people avoid such incidents. I don't see a big burden in clicking reply-all. We have many other real burdens with technology like remembering different passwords and user names, buggy software, lack of functionality, etc. Maybe we are focusing on this because we can control it. -- Bonnie Bonnie A. Nardi School of Information and Computer Sciences University of California, Irvine Irvine, CA 92697-3425 (949) 824-6534 www.artifex.org/~bonnie/ On Dec 16, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Mark D. Johns wrote:
Gilbert B. Rodman wrote:
... Put a slightly different way, either way, there's inevitably going to be a burden placed on *someone* to remember how the list is configured if/when they choose to respond to an onlist message: ...
What's less harmful? A message intended to be public accidentally sent to only one person, or a message intended to be private sent to a public list?
No matter how technically savvy we all may be, we are humans and humans sometimes make mistakes. We've all done it, if not on this list, on some other. If the list were reconfigured, the consequences of those mistakes would be minimized, and that would be better for everyone. The "cost" to the list of such a change would also be minimal. We all know how to resend a message if we discover it only went to one person rather than to everyone. -- Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Communication Studies Luther College, Decorah, Iowa USA http://academic.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
The cost of individual embarassment, I argue is grossly outweighed by the mutual benefit of shared communal knowledge and community building of the current settings. It is clear to me that from any individual perspective, who might feel individual harm, that the harm will always seem to outweigh the communal good, this is why we have to be wary of the argument of individual harm, it is a variation of the classic 'utility monster' problem of all arguments from utility. If someone feels so significantly more harmed or harmable than others, then the community is left with no response, in pursuit of a shared good defined in utility, than to modify their actions to the period of no harm. In fact, if harm is an issue, the slippery slide is that we should just close the list, as that is the only way of preventing the harm mentioned. The best way to solve the issue of harm from misposting is two fold. First we recognize that harm will occur, and when it does, we should sympathize and care for the harmed as one of us, and help them recover as best as we can. The second best way is to encourage people to be aware of the list settings, a 'list literacy' campaign....
It's not possible for the *default* to be reply-all but for those interested in saving the costs of individual embarrassment (or, perhaps, those knowingly less savvy) to be able to reconfigure, right?
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Hunsinger Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:15 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Answering questions on mailing lists & general mailing list notes
The cost of individual embarassment, I argue is grossly outweighed by the mutual benefit of shared communal knowledge and community building of the current settings. It is clear to me that from any individual perspective, who might feel individual harm, that the harm will always seem to outweigh the communal good, this is why we have to be wary of the argument of individual harm, it is a variation of the classic 'utility monster' problem of all arguments from utility. If someone feels so significantly more harmed or harmable than others, then the community is left with no response, in pursuit of a shared good defined in utility, than to modify their actions to the period of no harm. In fact, if harm is an issue, the slippery slide is that we should just close the list, as that is the only way of preventing the harm mentioned.
The best way to solve the issue of harm from misposting is two fold. First we recognize that harm will occur, and when it does, we should sympathize and care for the harmed as one of us, and help them recover as best as we can. The second best way is to encourage people to be aware of the list settings, a 'list literacy' campaign....
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
hmm, i don't think that there is an individual level configuration for this in mailman. if there was, this would be a moot point, it would be 'let each person choose' on th eserver. The default setting is the only setting on the server side. Keep in mind, you can always configure your mail client to only reply to the 'From:' address (well if you use a client that actually gives you control of your mail). Your e-mail does not have to follow the list rules, you are correct in that Ellis, each person can do what they want on the client side. I was speaking only about the server side defaults before, each person has client side defaults that may or may not be able to configure. On Dec 16, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Ellis Godard wrote:
It's not possible for the *default* to be reply-all but for those interested in saving the costs of individual embarrassment (or, perhaps, those knowingly less savvy) to be able to reconfigure, right?
when you think about it, I wonder why the designers (of mailman) didn't think to include that option. There is an option that asks if you want to receive your own posts to the list (and I never saw the rationale behind asking that question - but maybe in some designer's logic it does) r
hmm, i don't think that there is an individual level configuration for this in mailman. if there was, this would be a moot point, it would be 'let each person choose' on th eserver. The default setting is the only setting on the server side. Keep in mind, you can always configure your mail client to only reply to the 'From:' address (well if you use a client that actually gives you control of your mail). Your e-mail does not have to follow the list rules, you are correct in that Ellis, each person can do what they want on the client side. I was speaking only about the server side defaults before, each person has client side defaults that may or may not be able to configure. On Dec 16, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Ellis Godard wrote:
It's not possible for the *default* to be reply-all but for those interested in saving the costs of individual embarrassment (or, perhaps, those knowingly less savvy) to be able to reconfigure, right?
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php
radhika gajjala wrote:
when you think about it, I wonder why the designers (of mailman) didn't think to include that option.
There is an option that asks if you want to receive your own posts to the list (and I never saw the rationale behind asking that question - but maybe in some designer's logic it does)
r
Makes perfect sense: Because if the default were set to requiring "Reply All" and the "receiver your own messages" were set "on" you would know in a few minutes if you messed up by sending your reply only to the individual and didn't hit the list. You wouldn't see your own message come back, and that would tell you that you had messed up. A darned-sight less problematic than seeing your post come back when you *didn't* intend it for the list! Thanks for the Utilitarian logic, Jeremy. But we Kantians see it another way! ;-) -- Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Communication Studies Luther College, Decorah, Iowa USA http://academic.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
The cost of individual embarassment, I argue is grossly outweighed by the mutual benefit of shared communal knowledge and community building of the current settings. It is clear to me that from any individual perspective, who might feel individual harm, that the harm will always seem to outweigh the communal good, this is why we have to be wary of the argument of individual harm, it is a variation of the classic 'utility monster' problem of all arguments from utility. If someone feels so significantly more harmed or harmable than others, then the community is left with no response, in pursuit of a shared good defined in utility, than to modify their actions to the period of no harm. In fact, if harm is an issue, the slippery slide is that we should just close the list, as that is the only way of preventing the harm mentioned.
I wonder if perhaps there's not some benefit to be had from embarrassing ourselves from time to time in public? I think it reminds us that the emails are human-generated, and not computer-generated, and may help build bonds among listmembers -- not just through the causing offense, but also through the seeking and receiving forgiveness. Strong family ties are maintained, I would think, by the high level of vulnerability we share. For general discussion lists (such as this) I think individuals shold be encouraged to participate and share ideas, without fear of censure. For lists used to support specific projects (a funded grant, say) *not* having all communication shared by the entire group can actually be detrimental to the project's success. Just my two cents. Chris Hodge
participants (12)
-
Bonnie Nardi -
chodge5＠utk.edu -
David Brake -
Ellis Godard -
elw＠stderr.org -
Gilbert B. Rodman -
Jeremy Hunsinger -
Mark D. Johns -
Mary-Helen Ward -
Nicole Ellison -
radhika gajjala -
Richard Forno