Re: CfPs on the semantic-web mailing list (and other W3C mailing lists)

On 23/03/2022 11:01, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Thank you for the timely reminder; and thank you for taking on the task!
>
> I note that the idea of CfP covers a wide range of announcements (in my opinion).
> Call for Participation; Call for Papers; Deadline extended; Special Track; Call for Workshops.
> Just to pick a few from February (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2022Feb/subject.html )
>
> I would find it useful if the majority of those all started with a required
> [CfP]
yes, that's the idea (i.e. encompassing a broad notion of CfP)
> followed by any further elaboration the poster wants, such as
> [Second Call]
> or
> [Deadline Extended]
>
> I am not looking to start a discussion on what a CfP actually is(!), but perhaps suggesting in the archive page that it should be used for most posts associated with meetings and journals would be a useful thing to do.
> And that would facilitate your moderation activity when you feel that the spirit of the intention is not being upheld.

Thanks for the suggestion. I updated the archive page to make this more 
explicit.

   best

>
> Best
> Hugh
>
>> On 22 Mar 2022, at 15:42, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear subscriber to the semantic-web mailing list.
>>
>> I have been recently appointed maintainer of the list. It is with this hat on that I am writing this email.
>>
>> W3C has an anti-spam policy [1] applying to all the lists it hosts. This policy specifies that call for papers are, in general, not considered appropriate for W3C lists. This list, however, is a historical exception to that "no-cfp" rule. There was an informal survey back in 2016 [2], initiated by Phil Archer. The conclusion was that CfPs were acceptable on semantic-web@w3.org, but should contain the string "[CfP]" in their subject. As you have probably noticed, that rule has never been strictly followed (and I was guilty of that myself!)... It used to be documented on the mailing-list archive page, but even that has disappeared over time (I just put it back).
>>
>> I think, however, that it is a good thing to flag CfPs to make it easier to distinguish them from more targeted messages. Therefore, I ask all of us to stick to this good practice as much as possible.
>>
>> thanks in advance,
>>
>> pa
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/Mail/FAQ.html#spam

>> [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2016Mar/thread.html#msg108

>>
>> <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>
>