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

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

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 09:24:26 +0100
To: Dimitris Kontokostas <jimkont@gmail.com>
Cc: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>, janowicz@ucsb.edu, Ali Khalili <ali1k@yahoo.com>, Axel Polleres <droxel@gmail.com>, Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, LOD List <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56FCDEBA.9080105@w3.org>

On 31/03/2016 09:15, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> 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]).

That's a good shout, Dimitris. I'll investigate whether our smarts are 
smart enough to be able to block a CfP as spam *unless* it has [CfP] in 
the subject line.,

> 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


Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead

+44 (0)7887 767755
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2016 08:24:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:45 UTC