[TYPES] stricter moderation...?

Philip Wadler wadler at inf.ed.ac.uk
Thu Dec 22 05:03:09 EST 2005

I respectfully disagree with Laurent and David's position.

The previous policy on TYPES was this: if the relation to types was  
not obvious, then the poster needed to add a prelude explaining how  
the workshop is relevant to types.  This is an extension of the  
philosophy Stephanie mentioned: anyone can post to types, but they  
need to take some trouble to do so.  This is not censorship, just  
raising the bar a little higher for those who want to post conference  

For instance, the recent announcement for DIAS makes no mention of  
types.  Why are the organizers posting it to TYPES?  If it's because  
they welcome papers related to types, it would be useful for TYPES  
readers for them to say so.  If they don't, the message doesn't  
really belong on TYPES.

Cheers,  -- P

On 21 Dec 2005, at 17:58, Laurent Regnier wrote:

> [The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/ 
> types-list]
>> I am afraid this might be a somewhat controversial suggestion, but  
>> may
>> I propose the TYPES list be moderated a little more strictly?
> This is controversial indeed. I don't agree with this proposition.
> One reason is that the the number of mails posted on TYPES is not so
> big (compared to the number of spams that find their way across my
> spamassassin filter for example). It takes me only a few seconds per
> day to sort out which TYPES messages are of interest to me.
> Second, given the vast community that can be reached via the TYPES  
> list
> I'm pretty sure that every message posted on the list finds at least
> one person interested (this is probably underestimated).
> Last, even if some messages are not directly related to types or
> logic, most of them are indirectly related; how are we going to define
> what is direct and what is indirect (this might be even more  
> controversial)?
> Laurent Regnier
> Institut de Mathématiques de Luminy

More information about the Types-list mailing list