- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:52:36 -0400
- To: "Courtney, Paul K." <Paul_Courtney@DFCI.HARVARD.EDU>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
That's an interesting idea. The server could require an additional confirmation interaction before it allows anything with "cfp" or "call for papers" in the subject. But some AI may be needed to avoid too many false negatives, because lots of CFPs do not actually have those terms in the subject. Examples: Subject: Call for Challenge on Fine-Grained Sentiment Analysis @ ESWC2016. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2016Jan/0018.html Subject: 22nd ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI 2017): Second Call for Workshop Proposals Subject: SEMANTiCS 2016, Leipzig, Sep 12-15, Call for Research & Innovation Papers https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2016Jan/0012.html Subject: CISTI'2016 - 11th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2016Jan/0013.html Analysis of the message body could help reduce false negatives, but false positive should be kept down also, so that posters of legitimate messages are not unduly inconvenienced by additional confirmation interactions. Perhaps this problem needs a "Call for Student Project". ;) David Booth On 08/25/2016 08:10 PM, Courtney, Paul K. wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Thanks for the full explanation for the change. > > I do wonder though if there could be an automated response by the > listserv servers whenever there is “CFP” in the subject line that > informs the poster that the policy changed earlier this year and > directing them to the relevant documentation. In “day and age” it > seems rather trivial to make this kind of thing happen rather than > have the post appear and then have your response to the post appear > as well. > > Cheers, > > > Paul > > > > :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: > > > Paul K. Courtney, MS Applications Specialist/Biomedical > Informaticist Information Systems in support of the Stem Cell > Transplant Program Dana-Farber Cancer Institute T: 617.582.7389 C: > 603.727.8171 > > > F: 617.632.4030 > > On 8/25/16, 12:16 PM, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org> wrote: > > Paul, > > You're not the first to complain but I am confident that you are in a > minority. How do know? Because I asked members of both this list > and semantic-web and the results were clear. Many people value > receiving CfPs so we don't want to ban them outright, but W3C mailing > lists are not designed as promotional tools. Therefore we had to find > a way through. I have received more positive messages then negative > ones, some public, some private, so no, I am not pleasing everyone, > but the overall impression is positive. > > As for me being rude and snarky, point taken - I have had to > apologise to a couple of people before now and I hope I have been > more measured now that the issue seems to have settled down, but I do > get irritated by meaningless "apologies for cross posting." I do not > believe my message to Supriya Kapoor was rude or snarky; blunt, > maybe, but no more. > > The reasons for jumping on this particular message are: > > 1. the event advertised is a very general one about computing and is > not related to Web technologies in general, let alone Semantic Web > and Linked Data so the mail is not targeted; > > 2. the mail was sent to at least 3 lists. > > Untargeted mail sent to lots of people? I call that spam. > > I am pleased to say that many people have used the semantic-web list > to post CfPs without cross-posting, see > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2016Aug/. If > desired, you can filter the vast majority of those separately and > just focus on the discussions around vocabularies for units, DCAT for > RSS, DUL, etc. That's the desired outcome and, so far, it seems to be > working. > > As for being the sole arbiter, well, again, I did take the trouble to > ask and secondly, as W3C Data Activity Lead, it's actually one of my > jobs to maintain all our lists related to the general field of data > on the Web. > > Hope this clarifies the situation, > > Phil. > > On 25/08/2016 15:12, Courtney, Paul K. wrote: >> Phil, >> >> I’ve been watching you from the sidelines be the sole vocal arbiter >> on the matter of CFP and I really don’t understand the need you >> have to be unprofessional, rude, and snarky each and every time. >> This does nothing in my opinion but create an atmosphere of smug >> satisfaction for those who agree with you and dread for those who >> don’t. >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> :~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~: >> >> >> Paul K. Courtney, MS Applications Specialist/Biomedical >> Informaticist Information Systems in support of the Stem Cell >> Transplant Program Dana-Farber Cancer Institute T: 617.582.7389 C: >> 603.727.8171 >> >> >> F: 617.632.4030 >> >> On 8/25/16, 5:13 AM, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org> wrote: >> >> Dear Supriya Kapoor, >> >> Your message to this and two other W3C lists is pure spam. >> >> See >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2016May/0032.html. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ >> >> http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1 >> >> >> >> >> >> The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to >> whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in >> error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact >> the Partners Compliance HelpLine at >> http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to >> you in error but does not contain patient information, please >> contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-mail. >> > > -- > > > Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ > > http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1 > >
Received on Friday, 26 August 2016 14:53:08 UTC