I don't think you owe anyone any explanations or descriptions of yourself. The only thing you really need to provide is a good description of any problem you post as discussed on the r-help posting guide and as discussed in the single line at the bottom of every r-help message.
On 8/28/06, David Kane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After a question on R, Prof Brian Ripley writes: > > However, you did not give your affiliation and I do not like giving free > > consultancy to undisclosed commercial organizations. Please in future use > > a proper signature block so that helpers are aware of your provenance. > > I have one question and one comment. > > Question: Are there specific standards about this for R mailing lists? > I could not find any. I don't think that there should be because, in > the context of a mailing list question (as opposed to a personal > e-mail), the person's "affiliation" does not strike me as relevant > (although Professor Ripley is free to use whatever criteria he likes > for deciding which questions he answers). > > Comment: Does it make much sense to harp on a "commercial" versus > non-commercial motivation in the context of an R mailing list? I think > it makes no sense. I (like many other R users) have both commercial > and university affiliations. Are mailing list participants more > willing to answer my questions if I sign them: > > -- > David Kane > CEO > Kane Capital Management > > versus > > -- > David Kane > Institute Fellow at IQSS > Harvard University > > Moreover, just because I sign a message with a university signature > does not mean that I am using the information for academic research > just as a commercial signature does not imply the opposite. My > colleagues and I have asked many questions --- and thanks for all the > great answers! --- relating to out portfolio package, now > open-sourced. > > This is also true of "full-time" academics, many of whom do extensive > consulting. Just because an academic asks a question does not mean > that the answer won't be used solely for an "undisclosed commercial > organizations," or should such questions be openly labelled as such? > > Perhaps I am missing something. But the > current-standard-as-I-understand-it (use whatever signature you like) > seems perfectly fine. If R-core wants a different standard, I would, > of course, comply. > > Dave > > -- > Dave Kane > Whatever-Affiliation-You-Want-Here > > ______________________________________________ > R-devel@r-project.org mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel > ______________________________________________ R-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel