[PET] Moderating the PETS list?

Wright, Matthew mwright at cse.uta.edu
Thu Jul 15 17:02:55 BST 2010


I think that the problem is less with the amount of CFPs than the distinct lack of actual PETs discussions. As Mario says, the volume really isn't very high. I recently joined the cryptography at metzdowd.com mailing list and it has a lot of active crypto-related discussions, which would be a nice thing to have for PETs. 

The open question is whether the CFPs are preventing people from joining/staying/participating in discussion. If that's the belief, then go ahead and moderate. I guess we'll see if it has any impact.

cheers
-Matt

On Jul 15, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Steve wrote:

> I've recently joined the list and first impressions are it's all over the place. 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve 
> Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Marco A. Calamari" <marcoc at winstonsmith.org>
> Sender: pet-bounces at lists.links.org
> Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:51:56 
> To: Discussion of privacy enhancing technologies<pet at lists.links.org>
> Reply-To: Discussion of privacy enhancing technologies <pet at lists.links.org>
> Subject: Re: [PET] Moderating the PETS list?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PET mailing list
> PET at lists.links.org
> http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PET mailing list
> PET at lists.links.org
> http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet



More information about the PET mailing list