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

imho, what kind of emails are spam is something subjective and everyone on
these lists might have a different opinion.
However, for most people a spam is a spam, no matter how long, short,
well-written or structured the email is.

Whatever we decide one thing that would definitely help it to make all
these emails easier to filter out (or in).
One way is to *require* specific keywords on the subject (e.g. [CFP]).

If all the major mailing lists have such common requirements, eventually
everyone will use these conventions and people can create more efficient
filters on their email clients.

Cheers,
Dimitris



On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Thanks everyone for the replies so far and for the interesting discussion.
>
> In an ideal world, yes, we'd build a system that supported the CfP and
> included everything from venue to chairs to topics, to the PC and a special
> place for Sarven to keep all his PDFs (sic). Oh and it would publish the
> papers, link to the datasets, extract all the info and expose it as LD yada
> yada.
>
> And then... we'd have a load of spam saying "look, I uploaded my CfP to
> the master system."
>
> Seriously, a structured system for conference and workshop materials would
> be terrific and, yes, we should do it. I am embarrassed that dog food is
> entirely absent from my own workshop CfPs. Count W3C/ERCIM in for a project
> proposal to fix that.
>
> But, for now, my dichotomy is not false. Do you want CfPs on these lists
> or not? The survey results to date are pointing in a specific direction,
> which is very helpful.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil.
>
>
> On 30/03/2016 20:31, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>
>> A simple plain text email works just fine.
>>>
>>
>> Plain text works fine for me—it's just that there's too much of it right
>> now.
>>
>> Efficient CfPs that inform people with the least possible amount of words
>> would be an added value to a topic-specific mailing list like this.
>>
>> Some common practices, like listing the whole PC
>> and the conference's excellent reputation are just not helpful.
>> And that is what, I believe, a mailing list should focus on:
>> conveying helpful information to readers.
>>
>> I think it's important to say this in the discussion,
>> because now it's presented as a false dichotomy:
>> either we want CfPs or not.
>> Maybe the more interesting question is:
>> how can we have better CfPs that are actually helpful?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ruben
>>
>>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> W3C Data Activity Lead
> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>


-- 
Kontokostas Dimitris