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

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

From: Axel Polleres <droxel@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:58:39 +0200
Cc: Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, LOD List <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <33EBE4D4-F5B8-4881-B39E-6DBF672B71E4@gmail.com>
To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>

Besides being the primary W3C outlet for SW related topics, semantic-web@w3.org is in my feeling also the primary outlet for the research community in this area. So, spreading calls for papers there is as natural as using dbworld in the databases community.

My feeling is that of we ban CfPs on this list, we cut one of the major distribution channels for CfPs in our community.

One way around that (and I am not sure myself whether I'd be in favor of that or just happy with the status quo) would be to - following the example of dbworld - allow CfPs only to be sent through a (captcha-protected) Web form, and block/ban CfPs from individual users only, but still distribute them through this list.

just my two cents,
Axel

--
url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres

> On 30 Mar 2016, at 13:21, 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 Wednesday, 30 March 2016 12:59:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 12:59:16 UTC