Thanks everyone for the replies so far and for the interesting discussion.
In an ideal world, yes, we'd build a system that supported the CfP and
included everything from venue to chairs to topics, to the PC and a
special place for Sarven to keep all his PDFs (sic). Oh and it would
publish the papers, link to the datasets, extract all the info and
expose it as LD yada yada.
And then... we'd have a load of spam saying "look, I uploaded my CfP to
the master system."
Seriously, a structured system for conference and workshop materials
would be terrific and, yes, we should do it. I am embarrassed that dog
food is entirely absent from my own workshop CfPs. Count W3C/ERCIM in
for a project proposal to fix that.
But, for now, my dichotomy is not false. Do you want CfPs on these lists
or not? The survey results to date are pointing in a specific direction,
which is very helpful.
Thanks
Phil.
On 30/03/2016 20:31, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
A simple plain text email works just fine.
Plain text works fine for me—it's just that there's too much of it right now.
Efficient CfPs that inform people with the least possible amount of words
would be an added value to a topic-specific mailing list like this.
Some common practices, like listing the whole PC
and the conference's excellent reputation are just not helpful.
And that is what, I believe, a mailing list should focus on:
conveying helpful information to readers.
I think it's important to say this in the discussion,
because now it's presented as a false dichotomy:
either we want CfPs or not.
Maybe the more interesting question is:
how can we have better CfPs that are actually helpful?
Best,
Ruben
--
Phil Archer
W3C Data Activity Lead
http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
