[TYPES] stricter moderation...?
bcpierce at cis.upenn.edu
Thu Dec 22 12:37:27 EST 2005
I am also very much in favor of a slightly stricter moderation
policy, though I'm aware that it may be difficult to find a policy
that is both desirable and implementable with a reasonable amount of
Stephanie's energy. I liked the old policy that Phil describes, but
I think it got left by the wayside when we transitioned to the
Mailman software from the older ad hoc system: AFAIK, Mailman doesn't
provide an easy way for the moderator to send a message back to a
poster saying "I'm rejecting your post but I'd be happy to accept one
with a preamble explaining its relevance to the list."
One piece of anecdotal evidence that more moderation would be better
(for me) is that I discovered a few months ago that, when messages
arrives via Types, my instinctive reaction was annoyance rather than
interest ("Oh, here's more spam..."). Since then I've been sending
Types stuff to a separate mailbox that I look at only rarely. This
seems a shame.
Cutting down on the number of random announcements might also help
people feel encouraged to post questions and start discussions (to
keep the volume from going too low :-).
On Dec 22, 2005, at 5:03 AM, Philip Wadler wrote:
> [The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/
> 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/
>>> I am afraid this might be a somewhat controversial suggestion, but
>>> 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
>> 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
>> what is direct and what is indirect (this might be even more
>> Laurent Regnier
>> Institut de Mathématiques de Luminy
More information about the Types-list