My research in late antiquity falls between the worlds of classical and medieval scholarship. So when I first began to consider which Wiki to contribute to, DM or the Digital Classicist (wiki.digitalclassicist.org), I opted for the latter because it had garnered the most contributions and was at the time the most active. But I wondered at the time why medievalists and classicists really needed separate wikis anyway, since the material that was populating the pages applied to any field studying pre-modernity. Material surfaces in both spheres of exploration that could benefit any other. Thus, the "classicist" in "Digital Classicist" is not restricted to pre-2nd c. material; their wiki already has quite a lot of medieval and Byzantine content on it.
So instead of altering the bylaws, why not simply have DM endorse either the DC wiki or a comparable one? Follow the road of collaboration?
Best wishes,
jk -- Joel Kalvesmaki Editor in Byzantine Studies Dumbarton Oaks 1703 32nd St. NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 339-6435
________________________________________ From: dm-l [dm-l-bounces@uleth.ca] on behalf of Stokes, Peter [peter.stokes@kcl.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:05 AM To: dm-l@uleth.ca Subject: [SPAM - Header] - [dm-l] Proposed Changes to DM - Email found in subject
Dear all,
I apologise for the length of this e-mail, but I write regarding a series of fairly fundamental changes to the DM infrastructure that we have been planning for some time now. Given the scale of these changes, we on the DM Board think it is important to explain these in some detail and request feedback from the Community before we go ahead with them. They will also require a change of the Byelaws, and so again we need input from the Community for this.
Unfortunately the existing infrastructure has proven unmanageable. The wiki and mailing-list have both been subject to large-scale spam attacks, such that the wiki now contains many many thousands of articles, only 70 or so of which are genuine. The wiki has also had almost no activity beyond that of the Board, and so it has not been doing the job that we had hoped. Furthermore the website itself, which we have been hosting and coding ourselves (with substantial help from James Cummings and Dan O’Donnell) is also proving increasingly difficult to manage: it depends on the generosity of James and Dan to host and administer, even adding new pages is not trivial, and it has needed a dramatic overhaul for some time but to do this requires much more time and effort than we have been able to manage. For all of these reasons, we propose the following:
1. Moving the static website from the existing infrastructure (Cocoon + TEI + custom XSLT) to a standard CMS (currently Wordpress). 2. Closing down the wiki entirely and replacing it with a blog. 3. For the moment we are leaving the Journal in place, but we are very likely to move it to a dedicated open journal hosting of some sort. We have been discussing this in some detail with Revues.org but are not yet committed to this.
As most of you have realised, we have already set up a Wordpress version of the site at http://digitalmedievalist.wordpress.com/, and this is already proving to overcome the problems listed above. The proposal is therefore to make this the DM site and close down the old one, except perhaps for the Journal.
However, the current Byelaws require that DM maintains a wiki (see http://digitalmedievalist.wordpress.com/about/byelaws/#wiki). The Board is therefore not free to close the existing wiki without first changing the Byelaws. Even if we chose to keep the wiki, however, the Board feels that the Byelaws should not lock us into using any single technology, and so they should be changed even if we keep the existing infrastructure. The details of the proposed changes to the Byelaws will be posted shortly as a separate e-mail and on the new website, but in essence we propose simply to replace the term 'wiki' with 'information resources' and to adapt the containing sentences accordingly.
We would be grateful for any feedback about any aspect of this, preferably by e-mail to the list for general discussion, or alternatively to board@digitalmedievalist.org or any members of the Board directly. The next Board meeting is 4pm GMT+1 on Monday 2 June, at which point any comments will be discussed, and any changes in the Byelaws will be presented to the membership for vote shortly after that (as specified in §9 of the Byelaws: http://digitalmedievalist.wordpress.com/about/byelaws/#amendments).
Thank you, and we look forward to receiving your comments.
Peter Stokes (on behalf of the Executive Board)
-- Dr Peter Stokes Senior Lecturer Department of Digital Humanities King's College London Room 218, 2nd Floor 26-29 Drury Lane London, WC2B 5RL Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 2813 peter.stokes@kcl.ac.uk
Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l@uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l
I'd be happy to see a lot of Byzantine and other Mediaeval-ish material migrate to the DC wiki if desirable. The DC community are in fact just starting a series of wiki sprints to further improve and build on the content therein. (We sympathize with the problem of spam--we have resisted this only by making editing the wiki by "invitation only", which means that an admin has to create you an account to give you even the most basic editing rights. It's a pain, and no doubt limits participation to those who can be bothered to email us, but the DM experience that only board members do much editing anyway probably suggests that this isn't a tragedy.)
I don't think we'd want to see the DC wiki become a sort of generic "Digital Pre-Modernist" site, though, so let's try to keep some basic coherence. I think much of the content in DM was of a different order from the DC wiki, anyway...
Quick comment re the journal: I'd very much hope that wherever the journal migrates to (and Revues.org or similar would seem useful) the old, transparent, human-readable, "cool" URLs remain live permanently, even if as rewrites/redirects. I've cited many of those urls in dozens of places, including in print (!).
Otherwise, I endorse everything Peter suggests below.
Best,
Gabby
On 2014-05-21 14:45, Kalvesmaki, Joel wrote:
My research in late antiquity falls between the worlds of classical and medieval scholarship. So when I first began to consider which Wiki to contribute to, DM or the Digital Classicist (wiki.digitalclassicist.org), I opted for the latter because it had garnered the most contributions and was at the time the most active. But I wondered at the time why medievalists and classicists really needed separate wikis anyway, since the material that was populating the pages applied to any field studying pre-modernity. Material surfaces in both spheres of exploration that could benefit any other. Thus, the "classicist" in "Digital Classicist" is not restricted to pre-2nd c. material; their wiki already has quite a lot of medieval and Byzantine content on it.
So instead of altering the bylaws, why not simply have DM endorse either the DC wiki or a comparable one? Follow the road of collaboration?
Best wishes,
jk
Joel Kalvesmaki Editor in Byzantine Studies Dumbarton Oaks 1703 32nd St. NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 339-6435
From: dm-l [dm-l-bounces@uleth.ca] on behalf of Stokes, Peter [peter.stokes@kcl.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:05 AM To: dm-l@uleth.ca Subject: [SPAM - Header] - [dm-l] Proposed Changes to DM - Email found in subject
Dear all,
I apologise for the length of this e-mail, but I write regarding a series of fairly fundamental changes to the DM infrastructure that we have been planning for some time now. Given the scale of these changes, we on the DM Board think it is important to explain these in some detail and request feedback from the Community before we go ahead with them. They will also require a change of the Byelaws, and so again we need input from the Community for this.
Unfortunately the existing infrastructure has proven unmanageable. The wiki and mailing-list have both been subject to large-scale spam attacks, such that the wiki now contains many many thousands of articles, only 70 or so of which are genuine. The wiki has also had almost no activity beyond that of the Board, and so it has not been doing the job that we had hoped. Furthermore the website itself, which we have been hosting and coding ourselves (with substantial help from James Cummings and Dan O’Donnell) is also proving increasingly difficult to manage: it depends on the generosity of James and Dan to host and administer, even adding new pages is not trivial, and it has needed a dramatic overhaul for some time but to do this requires much more time and effort than we have been able to manage. For all of these reasons, we propose the following:
- Moving the static website from the existing infrastructure (Cocoon + TEI + custom XSLT) to a standard CMS (currently Wordpress).
- Closing down the wiki entirely and replacing it with a blog.
- For the moment we are leaving the Journal in place, but we are very likely to move it to a dedicated open journal hosting of some sort. We have been discussing this in some detail with Revues.org but are not yet committed to this.
As most of you have realised, we have already set up a Wordpress version of the site at http://digitalmedievalist.wordpress.com/, and this is already proving to overcome the problems listed above. The proposal is therefore to make this the DM site and close down the old one, except perhaps for the Journal.
However, the current Byelaws require that DM maintains a wiki (see http://digitalmedievalist.wordpress.com/about/byelaws/#wiki). The Board is therefore not free to close the existing wiki without first changing the Byelaws. Even if we chose to keep the wiki, however, the Board feels that the Byelaws should not lock us into using any single technology, and so they should be changed even if we keep the existing infrastructure. The details of the proposed changes to the Byelaws will be posted shortly as a separate e-mail and on the new website, but in essence we propose simply to replace the term 'wiki' with 'information resources' and to adapt the containing sentences accordingly.
We would be grateful for any feedback about any aspect of this, preferably by e-mail to the list for general discussion, or alternatively to board@digitalmedievalist.org or any members of the Board directly. The next Board meeting is 4pm GMT+1 on Monday 2 June, at which point any comments will be discussed, and any changes in the Byelaws will be presented to the membership for vote shortly after that (as specified in §9 of the Byelaws: http://digitalmedievalist.wordpress.com/about/byelaws/#amendments).
Thank you, and we look forward to receiving your comments.
Peter Stokes (on behalf of the Executive Board)
-- Dr Peter Stokes Senior Lecturer Department of Digital Humanities King's College London Room 218, 2nd Floor 26-29 Drury Lane London, WC2B 5RL Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 2813 peter.stokes@kcl.ac.uk
Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l@uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l
Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l@uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l
Thanks to Peter for such a clear presentation of problems and solutions. I support all suggestions from Peter and the board.
Best
Grover
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014, Gabriel Bodard gabriel.bodard@kcl.ac.uk wrote:
I'd be happy to see a lot of Byzantine and other Mediaeval-ish material migrate to the DC wiki if desirable. The DC community are in fact just starting a series of wiki sprints to further improve and build on the content therein. (We sympathize with the problem of spam--we have resisted this only by making editing the wiki by "invitation only", which means that an admin has to create you an account to give you even the most basic editing rights. It's a pain, and no doubt limits participation to those who can be bothered to email us, but the DM experience that only board members do much editing anyway probably suggests that this isn't a tragedy.)
I don't think we'd want to see the DC wiki become a sort of generic "Digital Pre-Modernist" site, though, so let's try to keep some basic coherence. I think much of the content in DM was of a different order from the DC wiki, anyway...
Quick comment re the journal: I'd very much hope that wherever the journal migrates to (and Revues.org or similar would seem useful) the old, transparent, human-readable, "cool" URLs remain live permanently, even if as rewrites/redirects. I've cited many of those urls in dozens of places, including in print (!).
Otherwise, I endorse everything Peter suggests below.
Best,
Gabby
On 2014-05-21 14:45, Kalvesmaki, Joel wrote:
My research in late antiquity falls between the worlds of classical and medieval scholarship. So when I first began to consider which Wiki to contribute to, DM or the Digital Classicist (wiki.digitalclassicist.org), I opted for the latter because it had garnered the most contributions and was at the time the most active. But I wondered at the time why medievalists and classicists really needed separate wikis anyway, since the material that was populating the pages applied to any field studying pre-modernity. Material surfaces in both spheres of exploration that could benefit any other. Thus, the "classicist" in "Digital Classicist" is not restricted to pre-2nd c. material; their wiki already has quite a lot of medieval and Byzantine content on it.
So instead of altering the bylaws, why not simply have DM endorse either the DC wiki or a comparable one? Follow the road of collaboration?
Best wishes,
jk
Joel Kalvesmaki Editor in Byzantine Studies Dumbarton Oaks 1703 32nd St. NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 339-6435
From: dm-l [dm-l-bounces@uleth.ca] on behalf of Stokes, Peter [ peter.stokes@kcl.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:05 AM To: dm-l@uleth.ca Subject: [SPAM - Header] - [dm-l] Proposed Changes to DM - Email found in subject
Dear all,
I apologise for the length of this e-mail, but I write regarding a series of fairly fundamental changes to the DM infrastructure that we have been planning for some time now. Given the scale of these changes, we on the DM Board think it is important to explain these in some detail and request feedback from the Community before we go ahead with them. They will also require a change of the Byelaws, and so again we need input from the Community for this.
Unfortunately the existing infrastructure has proven unmanageable. The wiki and mailing-list have both been subject to large-scale spam attacks, such that the wiki now contains many many thousands of articles, only 70 or so of which are genuine. The wiki has also had almost no activity beyond that of the Board, and so it has not been doing the job that we had hoped. Furthermore the website itself, which we have been hosting and coding ourselves (with substantial help from James Cummings and Dan O'Donnell) is also proving increasingly difficult to manage: it depends on the generosity of James and Dan to host and administer, even adding new pages is not trivial, and it has needed a dramatic overhaul for some time but to do this requires much more time and effort than we have been able to manage. For all of these reasons, we propose the following:
- Moving the static website from the existing infrastructure (Cocoon +
TEI + custom XSLT) to a standard CMS (currently Wordpress). 2. Closing down the wiki entirely and replacing it with a blog. 3. For the moment we are leaving the Journal in place, but we are very likely to move it to a dedicated open journal hosting of some sort. We have been discussing this in some detail with Revues.org but are not yet committed to this.
As most of you have realised, we have already set up a Wordpress version of the site at http://digitalmedievalist.wordpress.com/, and this is already proving to overcome the problems listed above. The proposal is therefore to make this the DM site and close down the old one, except perhaps for the Journal.
However, the current Byelaws require that DM maintains a wiki (see < http://digitalmedievalist.wordpress.com/about/byelaws/#wiki%3E). The Board is therefore not free to close the existing wiki without first changing the Byelaws. Even if we chose to keep the wiki, however, the Board feels that the Byelaws should not lock us into using any single technology, and so they should be changed even if we keep the existing infrastructure. The details of the proposed changes to the Byelaws will be posted shortly as a separate e-mail and on the new website, but in essence we propose simply to replace the term 'wiki' with 'information resources' and to adapt the containing sentences accordingly.
We would be grateful for any feedback about any aspect of this, preferably by e-mail to the list for general discussion, or alternatively to board@digitalmedievalist.org or any members of the Board directly. The next Board meeting is 4pm GMT+1 on Monday 2 June, at which point any comments will be discussed, and any changes in the Byelaws will be presented to the membership for vote shortly after that (as sp
-- Dr Gabriel BODARD Researcher in Digital Epigraphy
Digital Humanities King's College London Boris Karloff Building 26-29 Drury Lane London WC2B 5RL
T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388 E: gabriel.bodard@kcl.ac.uk
http://www.digitalclassicist.org/ http://www.currentepigraphy.org/
Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l@uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l
I fully recognize some of the key issues that Peter has outlined here. My responses:
I like a wiki as a clearing house of DM projects more than a blog. The spam sounds like more an issue of how the wiki is set up than the technology itself. I have no problem either combining or cross listing with the DC wiki and community as there is (and should be!) a good deal of cross over.
To encourage participation in the wiki: 1) grad students and interested undergrads could be given internships at our own institutions with the purpose of writing articles for the wiki. Thus, I, as member of the community, would have a summer intern (for credit) and have this student use and write up projects for the wiki and submit them. This gives the student some refereed publications, and also seeds things for the future.....getting a student involved so that the next generation of Digital Medievalists is growing and coming of age in direct relationship with this community 2) grows the Wiki as a clearing house for DM projects.
I agree that the bylaws can/should be changed so that the board is not locked into a single technology. But I think that the issue is not really the technology, but the humans.
I'd be disappointed to see the journal move to a hosting site. I'm not sure of what advantages there are and I can see a number of disadvantages. But then I have strong opinions about what we can do in electronic academic publishing and what we are doing.
Recognizing that in an organization like ours where we charge no membership fees also means that we have no money to pay someone to undertake tasks such as coding webpages etc and so on, this means of necessity depending on the generosity of someone to do it. And again this is an opportunity to cultivate the next generation of digital medievalists rather than sticking James or Dan with it. Our success depends on our personal involvement, and how we can plug our students into involvement, and I for one have really not been aware of how to do that beyond being a board member. As a once and future editor of an online journal in the field and chair, I need to know some specifics and where to put student energy to help out both organizations.
I think there are other and better solutions to the problems outlined.
Dear all,
Many thanks for the thoughts so far, which I appreciate a lot. A few quick responses for now:
- Yes, certainly the blog would be open to anyone as the wiki is now. This is encoded in the Byelaws now and will not be changed. Whether it will lead to more input from the Community remains to be seen.
- Yes, certainly we would have to preserve the existing URLs, especially for the Journal but ideally also for the static content. The Journal is a particular concern here, of course, and some hosting systems require that they are the only point where the articles are available, meaning that we would have to remove the current copies. I expect that this could be managed with redirects, but it's something we need to check very carefully before committing.
- One person (off list) suggested simply adding a recaptcha to the wiki. In principle this makes sense, but there is the secondary problem that the sys. admin. load is such that this proved much more difficult than expected. It required several upgrades of the wiki, combined with issues of getting root access, and our own time pressures. Ultimately the spam is a relatively small aspect: if we decide that a wiki is worth retaining then yes, there are easy enough ways of doing that. But it will require an investment of time and effort, and so we thought now is the time to review if it's what we really want.
Larry is exactly right in that this is a human problem not a technology problem. The fundamental difficulty that the Board keeps coming up against, as Larry points out, is that we are all contributing our time and effort without any financial contribution, and the reality is that we are all very busy and struggling to find the time to maintain what we have. It's easy enough in short bursts: the problem is a framework that's sustainable over years. The change of infrastructure is intended to reduce the load so that we can focus on what we are good at and what we can really do that has value to the community: in short, sys. admin. and XSLT doesn't seem to be the best use of our energies, particularly these days when so many online frameworks are available. A very modest amount of money would solve a lot of the problems, but introducing membership fees would introduce a whole new set of difficulties, and any one-off grants or donations are not sustainable in the long term, so I don't think either of these is feasible.
Again, though, I hope I'm not suggesting that any of this is a final decision. We very much do want to hear your thoughts and suggestions.
All the best,
Peter
On 21 May 2014, at 17:12, Larry Swain wrote:
I fully recognize some of the key issues that Peter has outlined here. My responses:
I like a wiki as a clearing house of DM projects more than a blog. The spam sounds like more an issue of how the wiki is set up than the technology itself. I have no problem either combining or cross listing with the DC wiki and community as there is (and should be!) a good deal of cross over.
To encourage participation in the wiki: 1) grad students and interested undergrads could be given internships at our own institutions with the purpose of writing articles for the wiki. Thus, I, as member of the community, would have a summer intern (for credit) and have this student use and write up projects for the wiki and submit them. This gives the student some refereed publications, and also seeds things for the future.....getting a student involved so that the next generation of Digital Medievalists is growing and coming of age in direct relationship with this community 2) grows the Wiki as a clearing house for DM projects.
I agree that the bylaws can/should be changed so that the board is not locked into a single technology. But I think that the issue is not really the technology, but the humans.
I'd be disappointed to see the journal move to a hosting site. I'm not sure of what advantages there are and I can see a number of disadvantages. But then I have strong opinions about what we can do in electronic academic publishing and what we are doing.
Recognizing that in an organization like ours where we charge no membership fees also means that we have no money to pay someone to undertake tasks such as coding webpages etc and so on, this means of necessity depending on the generosity of someone to do it. And again this is an opportunity to cultivate the next generation of digital medievalists rather than sticking James or Dan with it. Our success depends on our personal involvement, and how we can plug our students into involvement, and I for one have really not been aware of how to do that beyond being a board member. As a once and future editor of an online journal in the field and chair, I need to know some specifics and where to put student energy to help out both organizations.
I think there are other and better solutions to the problems outlined.
-- Larry Swain theswain@operamail.com
On Wed, May 21, 2014, at 08:45 AM, Kalvesmaki, Joel wrote:
My research in late antiquity falls between the worlds of classical and medieval scholarship. So when I first began to consider which Wiki to contribute to, DM or the Digital Classicist (wiki.digitalclassicist.org), I opted for the latter because it had garnered the most contributions and was at the time the most active. But I wondered at the time why medievalists and classicists really needed separate wikis anyway, since the material that was populating the pages applied to any field studying pre-modernity. Material surfaces in both spheres of exploration that could benefit any other. Thus, the "classicist" in "Digital Classicist" is not restricted to pre-2nd c. material; their wiki already has quite a lot of medieval and Byzantine content on it.
So instead of altering the bylaws, why not simply have DM endorse either the DC wiki or a comparable one? Follow the road of collaboration?
Best wishes,
jk
Joel Kalvesmaki Editor in Byzantine Studies Dumbarton Oaks 1703 32nd St. NW Washington, DC 20007 (202) 339-6435
From: dm-l [dm-l-bounces@uleth.ca] on behalf of Stokes, Peter [peter.stokes@kcl.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 8:05 AM To: dm-l@uleth.ca Subject: [SPAM - Header] - [dm-l] Proposed Changes to DM - Email found in subject
Dear all,
I apologise for the length of this e-mail, but I write regarding a series of fairly fundamental changes to the DM infrastructure that we have been planning for some time now. Given the scale of these changes, we on the DM Board think it is important to explain these in some detail and request feedback from the Community before we go ahead with them. They will also require a change of the Byelaws, and so again we need input from the Community for this.
Unfortunately the existing infrastructure has proven unmanageable. The wiki and mailing-list have both been subject to large-scale spam attacks, such that the wiki now contains many many thousands of articles, only 70 or so of which are genuine. The wiki has also had almost no activity beyond that of the Board, and so it has not been doing the job that we had hoped. Furthermore the website itself, which we have been hosting and coding ourselves (with substantial help from James Cummings and Dan O’Donnell) is also proving increasingly difficult to manage: it depends on the generosity of James and Dan to host and administer, even adding new pages is not trivial, and it has needed a dramatic overhaul for some time but to do this requires much more time and effort than we have been able to manage. For all of these reasons, we propose the following:
- Moving the static website from the existing infrastructure (Cocoon +
TEI + custom XSLT) to a standard CMS (currently Wordpress). 2. Closing down the wiki entirely and replacing it with a blog. 3. For the moment we are leaving the Journal in place, but we are very likely to move it to a dedicated open journal hosting of some sort. We have been discussing this in some detail with Revues.org but are not yet committed to this.
As most of you have realised, we have already set up a Wordpress version of the site at http://digitalmedievalist.wordpress.com/, and this is already proving to overcome the problems listed above. The proposal is therefore to make this the DM site and close down the old one, except perhaps for the Journal.
However, the current Byelaws require that DM maintains a wiki (see http://digitalmedievalist.wordpress.com/about/byelaws/#wiki). The Board is therefore not free to close the existing wiki without first changing the Byelaws. Even if we chose to keep the wiki, however, the Board feels that the Byelaws should not lock us into using any single technology, and so they should be changed even if we keep the existing infrastructure. The details of the proposed changes to the Byelaws will be posted shortly as a separate e-mail and on the new website, but in essence we propose simply to replace the term 'wiki' with 'information resources' and to adapt the containing sentences accordingly.
We would be grateful for any feedback about any aspect of this, preferably by e-mail to the list for general discussion, or alternatively to board@digitalmedievalist.org or any members of the Board directly. The next Board meeting is 4pm GMT+1 on Monday 2 June, at which point any comments will be discussed, and any changes in the Byelaws will be presented to the membership for vote shortly after that (as specified in §9 of the Byelaws: http://digitalmedievalist.wordpress.com/about/byelaws/#amendments).
Thank you, and we look forward to receiving your comments.
Peter Stokes (on behalf of the Executive Board)
-- Dr Peter Stokes Senior Lecturer Department of Digital Humanities King's College London Room 218, 2nd Floor 26-29 Drury Lane London, WC2B 5RL Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 2813 peter.stokes@kcl.ac.uk
Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l@uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l
Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l@uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l
-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different...
Digital Medievalist -- http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/ Journal: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/journal/ Journal Editors: editors _AT_ digitalmedievalist.org News: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/news/ Wiki: http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/wiki/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/digitalmedieval Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=49320313760 Discussion list: dm-l@uleth.ca Change list options: http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l
-- Dr Peter Stokes Senior Lecturer Department of Digital Humanities King's College London Room 218, 2nd Floor 26-29 Drury Lane London, WC2B 5RL Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 2813 peter.stokes@kcl.ac.uk
-
Gabriel Bodard -
Grover Zinn -
Kalvesmaki, Joel -
Larry Swain -
Stokes, Peter