Hi Paul, On 8/9/12 3:03 PM, Paul Syverson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:29:25AM +0200, Karsten Loesing wrote: >> On 8/8/12 8:13 PM, Mike Perry wrote: >>> Since HotPETS doesn't count as "publishing" perhaps this should be >>> listed as a tech report: >>> http://fscked.org/talks/TorFlow-HotPETS-final.pdf >> >> I agree. If it counted as "publishing", we'd put it on anonbib. But >> since that's not the case, let's put it on our tech reports list, or >> nobody will find it. > > Wait. What!? Since when did anonbib get restricted to what is > "published"? [...]
Ah, sorry for basing my statement above on an assumption so carelessly. I didn't really look whether there are only "published" papers in anonbib, or other stuff too. I just assumed that, and turns out that assumption was wrong. >> How about we put the LaTeX sources in tech-reports.git, change them to >> use the new tech report template, assign a report number, and add a >> footnote saying "This report was presented at 2nd Hot Topics in Privacy >> Enhancing Technologies (HotPETs 2009), Seattle, WA, USA, August 2009."? >> Then people can decide if they rather want to cite our tech report or >> the HotPETs one. > > This is pretty standard for tech reports at many universities, > organizations, etc. Also I think, stuff on arxiv. Okay. I think it makes sense here, regardless of whether HotPETs reports are on anonbib or not. Best, Karsten _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
