Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
iEYEARECAAYFAkwJxKEACgkQE5f5cImnZrv88ACfQaIHs5RbuTgsqDwiX4tW63eR
/kQAoJAGJ11huNSLzSXLqaQCPV48l0Co
=2toZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Cedric J A. Westphal wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> You wrote (full context in the email exchange below):
>
>> However, I'd like to ask anyone who suggests this is reasonable to
> also
>> consider what the impact of opening up this list to commercial posts
> would > be - both on this list, and on the IEEE as a whole. I don't know
> the
>> details of the previous decision, but consider, e.g., what you would
> trade
>> for such posts:
>> - possibly increased dues
>> - possibly increased conference fees
>> - possibly increased list traffic
>
> The impact on these three points is actually quite easy to consider.
>
> Regarding conferences: they are not subsidized by ad money from IEEE job
> postings.
(speaking as chair)
IEEE ComSoc conferences currently pay a percentage into the ComSoc, and this is
not directly correlated to specific services back to the conference per se.
Absent job posting income, that percentage could increase.
...
> With respect to dues: I open my current issue of IEEE Spectrum (where
> IEEE sells ads for money).
Spectrum is only one such place for such ads. The ads change substantially over
the course of the calendar year, both in quantity and in nature. Note also that
we also have no information on whether industry and academia are charged the
same fees.
> With respect to list traffic: industry positions have been historically
> allowed on TCCC even after the current policies were established in
> 2002. For instance:
As a current officer, I am responsible for enforcing the policies at this time.
Yes, there have been some past posts not noticed - both by current officers and
past ones - but that does not imply that current posts can or should be
permitted. We monitor the list as best we can.
> AFAICT, no one has objected to the list traffic created by these jobs
> emails.
> On the contrary, the overwhelming consensus of this discussion has been
> to keep the interpretation of the mailing list guidelines as in the
> past, and preserve this traffic.
The consensus of those posting to the list - a very small fraction of the
overall membership - is certainly in favor of allowing these posts. However, as
I have repeated several times, the list is subject to IEEE and ComSoc policy
*until that policy is changed*. It is not our right to override that policy
unilaterally; we need to raise our concerns to the ComSoc and get the policy
changed first, which is what I intend to do.
Joe
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment