Re-reading a second after hitting send, I realise my misinterpretation of these conclusions, which were not jumbled. The result was that one list is more tolerant of certain cfps, the other is no-cfps. Apologies for the extra noise.

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 at 09:38, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:


On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 at 09:18, Jan Ainali <ainali.jan@gmail.com> wrote:
I find all these academic call for papers/abstracts/submissions emails on this mailing list a bit spammy. 

I would be okay with them if the person mailing introduced it with a sentence or two why they believe it to be specifically interesting for the Wikidata community. 

Am I just grumpy and should delete and ignore, or do you too think we should introduce some guidelines for this?

We had this debate on some w3c lists,


compromise-conclusion:


(the posts jumble up names of 2 related lists but the result was same onboth)

""" Following that survey, the majority view is that:
1. CfPs are not welcome on this (public-lod@w3.org) list.

2. *Some* CfPs are tolerable on semantic-web@w3.org, especially if the 
string '[CfP]' appears in the subject line (for personal filtering).

I will write to the semantic-web list separately but for this list the 
rule is simple:

Calls for participation are not allowed on this list.

No exceptions.

None.

This is in line with other lists maintained by W3C that do not allow 
such posts.

Any future calls for participation posted to this list will be treated 
as spam"""






/Jan Ainali
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-leave@lists.wikimedia.org