Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
iEYEARECAAYFAkwH+nkACgkQE5f5cImnZruqewCg3gbov9j53/x9cCCQYK2yF7qv
Bu4AnR3WqSDxnv7Lmpb5BHGr9b0rH9Tz
=yVin
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi,
obazan@ee.ryerson.ca wrote:
...
>>> I believe that the issue is not allowing or banning CFPs but rather
>>> regulating their appearance on the list.
...
>>> One suggestion is to limit the number of posts of the same CFP to 3-4
>>> times with an additional CFP in case the deadline is extended. Another
>>> suggestion is to regulate the interval between successive posting of the
>>> same CFP to a minimum of 3-4 weeks for example. Violators of the CFP
>>> policy to be penalized at the discretion of the chair.
...
>> It's not impossible to moderate a list of this size, but if this is of
>> sufficient interest, we'd also need someone to volunteer to do this (note -
>> that also means having a backup and/or not being offline for more than a
>> 1-2 days in a row).
>>
>> Joe
>
> There is no need for extra effort to moderate the list. A simple and
> reasonable CFP policy is expected to be respected and could be just
> monitored.
(speaking as an individual)
The end2end-interest list has had a similar policy for many years, yet the bulk
(>95%) of the CFPs received violate the posting rules.
The solution there is to have all detected CFPs held for review (moderation).
This doesn't require moderating the whole list, but is still a substantial
amount of *daily* work.
Again, that's for a list with highly restrictive posting rules (one call for
papers, one call for participation per event) - and those rules have been widely
known for many years.
Joe
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment