On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:05 AM, Stelian Mocanita < [email protected]> wrote:
> Not entirely sure about the status of that to be honest, in theory we > should. > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Hannes Magnusson < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Didn't we have a patch to use joind.in already? > > How about just merging that and be done with this? :/ > > > > -Hannes > > > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Stelian Mocanita > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > Even though we clearly state that "conference submissions should be > > emailed > > > to [email protected]" there are still a couple of > conferences > > > making their way into the events. > > > > > > I would propose adding an event type "Conference" to the drop down and > > > trigger an error on submission for that event type, to avoid the case > > where > > > people do not read the first paragraph. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > Best, > > > Stelian > > > Hi, I'm not really up-to-date with the discussion, but AFAIR Paul was working on the joind.in integration and I have two issues which I don't remember what was the consensus on: 1, making joind.in mandatory for listing a conference would make us lose some confs (where the conf doesn't want to use joind.in, like ConFoo) 2, we would still need some kind of approval/moderation system, otherwise anybody can just add the phpdotnet(or whatever else we decide to use) tag to their conference, and we can't do anything about that on joind.in. there was a mention that at least joind.in has a full-time moderation team, so the turnaround time for reports could be still better what we have now. -- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
