[PET] Moderating the PETS list?

Koot, Matthijs M.R.Koot at uva.nl
Fri Jul 16 11:02:11 BST 2010


+1

Matthijs


-----Original Message-----
From: pet-bounces at lists.links.org on behalf of Ivan Szekely
Sent: Thu 7/15/2010 12:12 PM
To: Discussion of privacy enhancing technologies
Subject: Re: [PET] Moderating the PETS list?
 
+1 from my part, too. Glad that Roger raised the question.

Ivan

PS. FYI: The new International PET Portal and Blog will be operational by September. It will be tri-lingual (English, Dutch, Hungarian) but can be extended to other languages, too. The three "themes" (i.e. target groups) will be young ones, adults and professionals. This forum would allow a more loose communication (also between laymen and professionals) in the intersection of IT and privacy - however, to be honest, I wouldn't be glad to read to many CFPs in non-PET related subjects there. The forum will be moderated anyhow.


>>> Andreas Pfitzmann <pfitza at inf.tu-dresden.de> 7/15/2010 11:34 AM >>>
+1

Andreas Pfitzmann


Am 15.07.2010 um 11:24 schrieb Emiliano De Cristofaro:

> Dear All,
> 
> I agree with Roger and I think that PETS mailing list should be more specific to privacy-related topics.
> CPF-s are in fact useful, but as long as they are for (non-embarrassing) security and privacy-related conferences.
> 
> Therefore my opinion is to moderatethe list.
> 
> Cheers and see you in Berlin!
> Emiliano
> 
> On 7/15/10 10:51 AM, Marco A. Calamari wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 13:34 -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
>>   
>>> This list has turned into a train wreck of CFPs that aren't affiliated
>>> with PETS. Next week I'm going to raise the question of whether we should
>>> moderate it, or what else we can do to get it back to the "low volume
>>> PETS-specific mailing list" that it used to be.
>>> 
>>> Now you have a week to ponder your opinion. :)
>>>     
>> 11 messages in 15 day is less than 1 msg/day,
>>  and I normally can afford a list with such volume
>> In addition CFP for me are interesting.
>> 
>> But I understand the problem of OT.
>> 
>> In summary, my vote: neutral
>> 
>> .. so this is a very useful message anyway... ;)
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 


_______________________________________________
PET mailing list
PET at lists.links.org
http://lists.links.org/mailman/listinfo/pet

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 3972 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.links.org/pipermail/pet/attachments/20100716/7facc21d/attachment.bin>


More information about the PET mailing list