Hi all,

Eric Paterson raised an interesting question in his last e-mail which most of us should have received.

Having SIGs as the "SIG on Ship Hydrodynamics" and the "SIG on Multiphase Flows", do we need one specifically on Interfacial Flows, or Wave Hydrodynamics (or possibly rename the groups)?

1. Let's use the discussion boards rather than e-mails


2. What do you think?

My opinion is that there is enough space for SIGs on a very specific topic and for SIGs on more general ones. The first in my view can discuss and work on more concrete issues pertaining to their specific field of activity (maybe using the provided open sub-project manager for collaborative projects), while the latter one may be a pool for cross-communication and more general discussion (which might yield into (core-)feature requests).

However, to clarify things a new category would be good:

1. Working Groups (active on a specific topic)


2. Special Interest Group (general field of activity)

best,
Holger

Hi all

I agree with Holger that such a partition would be benificial. I image that general topics such as surface tracking routines or true two-phase turbulent implementation could be part of a work group whereas more specific issues such as validation of wave generation, drag computation on ship hulls, etc, would nicely fit into a SIG.

Doing it in this way could improve contact between people working on the same general topics.

Best regards,

Niels

Hi all,

I have added the category "Working Groups". Now people interested to start a concrete project have the possible to start a sub-group (discussion boards, walls) and to start a sub-project (task-, time-, file-management, calendar etc.), which sorts things a bit while providing the needed functionality and freedom.

Currently I am trying to display the category description on the front-end, so people get an idea, what the category is about and which category to associate their group with.

best,
Holger