[TYPES] stricter moderation...?

Benjamin Pierce 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/ 
> types-list]
> 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
> announcements.
> 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