You could look into Element as an alternative to Slack. It's a client for the open-source Matrix messaging protocol, and there's an option to use their servers or to host your own server locally.
From: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Wasmann, Jan-Willem <000002283c49aafe-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2025 7:22:15 am
To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: better listserv tech
Dear list,
It's very hard to find systems that will still work a decade from now. In our field, I’m often impressed by the longevity of cochlear implants. I sometimes ask my patients what technology they have that they also used 25 years ago (maybe their alarm clock?).
So, maybe better not to change a winning team? With the computational audiology network (CAN), we briefly used Slack actively, as a community system / messenger system. Until Slack changed the conditions for free use. We ended up needing to pay 1500 dollars
per month to continue using the services we had taken for granted. So our network on Slack imploded. Another downside was that most people didn't log in regularly. Actually, we are still looking for a free, open-source alternative for the CAN community to
use. So if people on this list have suggestions of adequate and affordable platforms, please let me know.
Two improvements I could think of for this list are a weekly digest (or does that already exist?) and a way to prevent most messages from ending up in my spam folder (a problem with Microsoft).
My two cents,
Jan-Willem
Van: AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Namens Krzysztof Basinski
Verzonden: donderdag 17 april 2025 10:22
Aan: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Onderwerp: Re: [AUDITORY] better listserv tech
Hi all,
As Dan mentioned that the current setup is implicitly acceptable to most, I thought I’d just state explicitly why it’s acceptable to myself:
1. This list is a wonderful, almost indispensable source of information.
2. It is great that it is oldschool and it works. Every new tech has caveats that may not be immediately apparent (maintenance, privacy issues, hidden costs). If you want extra features, you can always do it on the client side (fancy email clients, AI if you
don’t mind them reading your mail, etc).
3. It is extremely important that the list does not rely on a megacorp (Google) for tech. There are multiple political, ethical and practical reasons for this. Bottom line is that the AUDITORY list is by now an important piece of the history of auditory science.
We need to be careful with it, as with any historic artefact. Last thing you want to do is to hand over a Da Vinci painting to Google for safe keeping, right? Sorry for being a bit over the top with the analogy but I hope the point is clear.
4. Dan Ellis does great work.
Best,
Chris
On 16 Apr 2025, at 17:45, Dan Ellis <dan.ellis@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Since my name was mentioned...
A few years back I suggested moving the list to Google Groups. (At that time, McGill was having some problems with their listserv setup, but it seems fine now.) My interest in Google Groups was that it was modern and probably long-lasting, but many people
were (I think) uncomfortable ceding control to a megacorp, so no action was taken.
We have a very large and diverse membership, which inclines me to stick with what we have -- which is, implicitly, acceptable to most (although we have had dozens of departures in the past few weeks). I regret that the flexibility isn't as great as some would
wish, but my feeling is it works pretty well.
Thanks for the constructive discussion.
DAn.
De informatie in dit bericht is uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Aan dit bericht en de bijlagen kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend. Heeft u deze e-mail onbedoeld ontvangen? Dan verzoeken wij u het te vernietigen en de afzender te informeren. Openbaar
maken, kopiëren en verspreiden van deze e-mail of informatie uit deze e-mail is alleen toegestaan met voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de afzender. Het Radboudumc staat geregistreerd bij de Kamer van Koophandel in het handelsregister onder nummer
80262783.
The content of this message is intended solely for the addressee. No rights can be derived from this message or its attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, we kindly request you to delete the message and inform the sender. It is strictly prohibited
to disclose, copy or distribute this email or the information inside it, without a written consent from the sender. Radboud university medical center is registered with the Dutch Chamber of Commerce trade register with number 80262783.