W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Survey: Use of this list for Calls for Papers

From: Hugh Glaser <hugh@glasers.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:52:09 +0100
Cc: Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, LOD List <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DB01FFE1-9617-42BF-B772-39E4459AFB33@glasers.org>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Hi Phil,
Good question.
I’m afraid none of the username/passwords I have for w3.org seem to work.
Can you give me a hint at which pair I should be using, or tell me how to retrieve/reset, please?

While I’m here… :-)
a) I think the idea of allowing CFPs, as long as they clearly have [CFP] or whatever in the subject line, is great.
b) We could pick one of the two lists, then we would see less duplication; I would suggest semweb, as that embraces LD.
(Maybe I would get to vote that way, but I don’t know what the 4 questions are :-) )
c) I don’t want to have CFPs shortened - I often read my email when I am offline (in fact I keep such emails to read offline), and it is a pain when the information is all “just a click away”, but I can’t get it.

Best
Hugh 

> On 30 Mar 2016, at 12:21, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> A perennial topic at W3C is whether we should allow calls for papers to be posted to our mailing lists. Many argue, passionately, that we should not allow any CfPs on any lists. It is now likely that this will be the policy, with any message detected as being a CfP marked as spam (and therefore blocked).
> 
> Historically, the semantic-web and public-lod lists have been used for CfPs and we are happy for this to continue *iff* you want it.
> 
> Last time we asked, the consensus was that CfPs were seen as useful, but it's time to ask you again.
> 
> Please take a minute to answer the 4 question, no need for free text, survey at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/1/
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Phil.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
> 
Received on Friday, 1 April 2016 10:52:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 1 April 2016 10:52:41 UTC