Subject: Re: stricter moderation...? - msg#00024

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

stricter moderation...?

[The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list] Dear all, I am afraid this might be a somewhat controversial suggestion, but may I propose the TYPES list be moderated a little more strictly? I am seeing more and more messages that are not _directly_ and _explicitly_ related to types (or logics). They are "too many" to just ignore (and yet the list is too useful to quit:-). Of course, this means more work for Stephanie and I am not sure if others agree - so everything depends on how people think. Any ideas...? Best regards, -- Eijiro Sumii (http://www.kb.ecei.tohoku.ac.jp/~sumii/) Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: stricter moderation...?

[The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list] I would suggest very little moderation (otherwise known as censorship) indeed. Attempts to draw boundaries around topics will generally lack consensus and will tend to inhibit useful interaction.One person's "directly or explicitly related" is another's "irrelevant": there are no good rules. Generally speaking, though, science is healthier when it is broad- and open-minded. If one is very clear and strict about what one is interested in, then irrelevant postings can be identified and deleted very quickly indeed. In any case, most of the time, traffic on types is very light. David Pym Stephanie Weirich wrote: >[The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list] > >I'm happy to implement Eijiro's suggestion if others agree. (I do >admit that I have become *slightly* more lax after switching to >member-only posts last fall. The additional announcements you see are >from those who have taken the trouble to become members of the TYPES >list, and so therefore do think that their announcements are relevant >to this community.) > >Either way, please send any thoughts either directly to this list, or >straight to me at sweirich-bBguPyWdlyoZXhyPf+PMEA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In >particular, I'd like to >know if there are subjects (such as security, formal methods, >software engineering, etc.) that you particularly do or do not want >to see announcements about. > >Also feel free to send me feedback about the TYPES forum at any time. > >Thanks, > >Stephanie Weirich >TYPES forum moderator >sweirich-bBguPyWdlyqyum0STUha2w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > >On Dec 20, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Eijiro Sumii wrote: > > > >>[The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/ >>types-list] >> >>Dear all, >> >>I am afraid this might be a somewhat controversial suggestion, but may >>I propose the TYPES list be moderated a little more strictly? I am >>seeing more and more messages that are not _directly_ and _explicitly_ >>related to types (or logics). They are "too many" to just ignore (and >>yet the list is too useful to quit:-). Of course, this means more >>work for Stephanie and I am not sure if others agree - so everything >>depends on how people think. Any ideas...? >> >>Best regards, >> >>-- >>Eijiro Sumii (http://www.kb.ecei.tohoku.ac.jp/~sumii/) >>Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University >> >> > > > -- Prof. David J. Pym Telephone: +44 (0)1 225 38 3246 Professor of Logic & Computation Facsimile: +44 (0)1 225 38 3493 University of Bath Email: d.j.pym-+E0FUbDlCk21Qrn1Bg8BZw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bath BA2 7AY, England, U.K. Web: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~cssdjp Royal Society Industry Fellow, HP Labs, Bristol: david.pym-VXdhtT5mjnY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

stricter moderation...?

[The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list] Dear all, I am afraid this might be a somewhat controversial suggestion, but may I propose the TYPES list be moderated a little more strictly? I am seeing more and more messages that are not _directly_ and _explicitly_ related to types (or logics). They are "too many" to just ignore (and yet the list is too useful to quit:-). Of course, this means more work for Stephanie and I am not sure if others agree - so everything depends on how people think. Any ideas...? Best regards, -- Eijiro Sumii (http://www.kb.ecei.tohoku.ac.jp/~sumii/) Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: stricter moderation...?

[The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list] I would suggest very little moderation (otherwise known as censorship) indeed. Attempts to draw boundaries around topics will generally lack consensus and will tend to inhibit useful interaction.One person's "directly or explicitly related" is another's "irrelevant": there are no good rules. Generally speaking, though, science is healthier when it is broad- and open-minded. If one is very clear and strict about what one is interested in, then irrelevant postings can be identified and deleted very quickly indeed. In any case, most of the time, traffic on types is very light. David Pym Stephanie Weirich wrote: >[The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list] > >I'm happy to implement Eijiro's suggestion if others agree. (I do >admit that I have become *slightly* more lax after switching to >member-only posts last fall. The additional announcements you see are >from those who have taken the trouble to become members of the TYPES >list, and so therefore do think that their announcements are relevant >to this community.) > >Either way, please send any thoughts either directly to this list, or >straight to me at sweirich-bBguPyWdlyoZXhyPf+PMEA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In >particular, I'd like to >know if there are subjects (such as security, formal methods, >software engineering, etc.) that you particularly do or do not want >to see announcements about. > >Also feel free to send me feedback about the TYPES forum at any time. > >Thanks, > >Stephanie Weirich >TYPES forum moderator >sweirich-bBguPyWdlyqyum0STUha2w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > >On Dec 20, 2005, at 8:46 PM, Eijiro Sumii wrote: > > > >>[The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/ >>types-list] >> >>Dear all, >> >>I am afraid this might be a somewhat controversial suggestion, but may >>I propose the TYPES list be moderated a little more strictly? I am >>seeing more and more messages that are not _directly_ and _explicitly_ >>related to types (or logics). They are "too many" to just ignore (and >>yet the list is too useful to quit:-). Of course, this means more >>work for Stephanie and I am not sure if others agree - so everything >>depends on how people think. Any ideas...? >> >>Best regards, >> >>-- >>Eijiro Sumii (http://www.kb.ecei.tohoku.ac.jp/~sumii/) >>Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University >> >> > > > -- Prof. David J. Pym Telephone: +44 (0)1 225 38 3246 Professor of Logic & Computation Facsimile: +44 (0)1 225 38 3493 University of Bath Email: d.j.pym-+E0FUbDlCk21Qrn1Bg8BZw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bath BA2 7AY, England, U.K. Web: http://www.bath.ac.uk/~cssdjp Royal Society Industry Fellow, HP Labs, Bristol: david.pym-VXdhtT5mjnY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.