On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:53 PM, Lorna Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27 January 2015 at 12:38, Paul Dragoonis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 27 Jan 2015 12:35, "Ferenc Kovacs" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > 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? >> >> I'm here and willing to continue solving problems with code. We need to >> have a discussion on what we consider blocker issues and other ones that >> are not so serious. Then I can write the code to make it happen. Coding is >> the easy part :-) >> >> Let's pull Lorna in on this again. >> >> >> > > >> >> > > 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 >> > > I'm here but I'm not sure I have anything more to offer. We agreed on a > tag "phpdotnet" which we can encourage our users to use and you can get the > data here http://api.joind.in/v2.1/events?tags=phpdotnet (it is json if > you're not a web browser). Events won't be totally spam as they're > human-approved, but we don't specifically check tags as they're usually > added after event creation. > > We'll try hard to educate our users when they should use this tag (and I > can obviously edit as needed!) once you're actually using it. I hope this > this will reduce your workload while allowing the community to still get > the word out about their events. > As Lorna mentioned - there's already a moderation process for Joind.in and we trust them to continue to do a great job. I'm happy to have a dual setup whereby people can continue to submit us manual requests as well as pulling from joindin. I already implemented this. So at the moment, we have existing events, plus joind.in events being displayed onto the /conferences/ page. What else is needed here? Anyone? > > Does that help? > > Lorna > > > -- > Lorna Mitchell > http://lornajane.net > > >
