todoist-desc:: From: onbehalfof@manuscriptcentral.com Received: 2026-01-08T15:15:16Z ✉: [Web Link](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAiVbuR5AAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) --- Okay, here's a summary of the email, formatted as a task description with actionable steps: **Task: Review Manuscript - 'Evaluating Incompatible Third-party Library API Usage in LLM-based Code Completion'****Objective:** To thoroughly review the provided manuscript titled "Evaluating Incompatible Third-party Library API Usage in LLM-based Code Completion" submitted to *Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology*. **Instructions:** 1. **Locate Manuscript:** Access the manuscript at: * [ScholarOne Manuscripts](https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tosem?URL_MASK=f8e067daf3c948909c391290bf2da5b7) * Alternatively, access the manuscript through the system at: [http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tosem (in the reviewer center)] 2. **System Login & Paper Download:** Follow the instructions to log in to the system and download the manuscript. 3. **Review and Identify Missing Literature:*** Identify any relevant literature that is missing from the reference list. * For each relevant paper: * Collect the names of all authors. * Retrieve the paper title. * Retrieve the journal/book title where the paper was published. * Find the year of publication. * Obtain the URL link to the paper. * Justify why this source is relevant – highlight a key aspect or contribution. 4. **Report Generation:** Create a report summarizing your findings, including the bibliographic information of the relevant literature. 5. **Report Formatting:** Use the provided template for report formatting. **Deliverable:** A completed report containing the collected bibliographic information and justification for the identified literature. **Notes:** The primary focus is on verifying the accuracy and completeness of the manuscript's bibliographic information and identifying potential missing sources of literature. Ensure the report highlights key findings and is well-organized. --- 08-Jan-2026 Dear Dr. Di Ruscio, Thank you for agreeing to review the following paper submitted for possible publication to Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology: Evaluating Incompatible Third-party Library API Usage in LLM-based Co
todoist-status:: ◼️
- [[2026-02-04]] Tosem-2024-0255.R2 - Revised Version
todoist-desc:: Weblink: [Outlook](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAiamts0AAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) Email Content Summary: You are requested to review the revised version of the paper titled "Towards AI-Native Software Engineering (SE 3.0): A Vision and a Challenge Roadmap" submitted to Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) with manuscript ID TOSEM-2024-0255.R2. The review is to be completed within 4 weeks. Links to the manuscript system where you can download the paper, update your information, access previous review comments, and submit your review report are provided. Please identify missing relevant papers in the references and include comprehensive bibliographic information in your review report. For any login issues, contact atemplet@gmail.com. Referee guidelines are available at https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/peer-review. This task is assigned considering your role as Davide Di Ruscio, coordinator of the PhD in ICT program at the University of L'Aquila.
todoist-desc:: From: emanuela.botta@univaq.it Received: 2026-02-02T18:21:15Z ✉: [Web Link](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAil0oiaAAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) --- --- Care e cari, finalmente sono arrivati i decreti attuativi e presto apriremo le iscrizioni, i tempi sono molto stretti perché il percorso dovrà chiudersi entro il 30 giugno 2026. Vi scrivo per quanto riguarda l’orario dell'area comune. Come lo scorso anno
todoist-desc:: From: disorbo@unisannio.it Received: 2026-01-20T09:03:13Z ✉: [Web Link](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAidZtYrAAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) --- Here's a summary of the email content and the corresponding actionable task: **Task Summary:** The email is a rejection notification from the Journal of Systems and Software (JSS) for the submission "Examining Fairness Issues in Machine Learning-based Systems" (Ref. No.: JSSOFTWARE-D-25-01604). While the paper is rejected, the editor strongly advises resubmission after addressing the reviewers' detailed comments. The reviewers highlight significant areas for improvement in the manuscript's framing of fairness, integration of related work, methodological structure and detail (especially for the qualitative analysis), dataset selection justification, and the significance and implications of the results. The resubmitted paper will be treated as a new submission. **Actionable Task:****Task:** Revise and Resubmit Paper to Journal of Systems and Software **Description:** The submission "Examining Fairness Issues in Machine Learning-based Systems" (Ref. No.: JSSOFTWARE-D-25-01604) has been rejected by the Journal of Systems and Software. However, the editor encourages resubmission after addressing detailed reviewer comments. Key areas for improvement include: ***Framing of Fairness:** Clearly define whether fairness is treated as a technical, socio-technical, or hybrid concern. ***Related Work:** Synthesize the literature into a coherent argument rather than an enumerative survey. ***Methodology:** * Present a unified methodological structure with clear workflows and transitions between phases. * Provide more detailed explanations for the qualitative coding process, including iteration, rater interaction, and reliance on LLM summaries. * Clarify the sequencing of methodological steps and ensure logical dependencies. * Justify dataset selection criteria and report exclusion numbers. * Ensure consistency between research questions and the role of LLMs. * Consider extending the dataset size if feasible through pre-screening. ***Results and Discussion:** * Explicitly discuss novel vs. incremental findings and align with previous empirical work. * Provide concrete examples of implications for practitioners. * Consider adding new research questions and discussions. * Clarify the rationale for using large language models. ***Overall Cohesion:** Improve the integration and cohesion across different methods employed in the study. **Recommended Actions:** 1. **Thoroughly read and understand all reviewer comments.** 2. **Develop a detailed plan to address each comment.** Categorize comments by theme (e.g., Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion) to facilitate systematic revision. 3. **Rewrite sections of the manuscript** based on the reviewer feedback, focusing on the identified weaknesses. 4. **Prepare a comprehensive response letter** detailing how each reviewer comment has been addressed. 5. **Ensure the resubmitted manuscript is treated as a NEW submission** but consider disclosing the original submission information and reference number. 6. **Consult empirical research guidelines** (e.g., Paul Ralph et al. 2020) for structuring the revised manuscript and methodology. 7. **Consider creating a methodological diagram** to clarify the workflow. **No Deadline:** The email does not specify a deadline for resubmission. --- Buongiorno a tutti, vi giro la mail ricevuta da JSS. Saluti, Andrea ---------- Forwarded message --------- Da: Journal of Systems and Software <em@editorialmanager.com> Date: lun 19 gen 2026 alle ore 10:59 Subject: Decision on your submission
todoist-desc:: From: disim.sac@strutture.univaq.it Received: 2026-02-03T08:25:59Z ✉: [Web Link](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAil0ojiAAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) --- Okay, here’s a summary of the email content, broken down into actionable tasks, with a focus on clarity and conciseness: **Task Summary:** Draft a letter of instruction for the Dottorandi to prepare letter of intent for the next year's project. **Actionable Tasks:** 1. **Identify the specific requirements outlined in the email.** (This is the core task - understand exactly what's required.) 2. **Draft the letter of instruction.** (Create the actual text of the letter.) 3. **Review and finalize the letter of instruction.** (Ensure accuracy, clarity, and compliance with the email's guidelines.) 4. **Send the letter of instruction to the Dottorandi.** (Deliver the instruction to the assigned group.) 5. **Confirm the recipients of the letter.** (Ensure the correct recipients receive the document) **Deadline (Assumed):** This is not explicitly stated, but it implies a timeframe for completing the task - likely within the next week or two. **Todoist Task:** Create a task in Todoist titled "Dottorandi Letter of Intent". --- Buongiorno, vi scrivo per segnalarvi che le lettere di incarico dovranno essere predisposte anche per i dottorandi che, seppur a costo zero, hanno sostenuto missioni pagate dal progetto. Nelle linee guida è infatti specificato: "I costi sostenuti per
todoist-status:: ◼️
- [[2026-02-04]] Riprendere l alimentatore comprato Comet
todoist-desc:: From: alessandra.galassi@graduate.univaq.it Received: 2026-01-09T11:04:30Z ✉: [Web Link](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAiWL7x2AAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) --- Okay, here’s a synthesized summary of the email, broken down into actionable tasks, based on the content: **Task Summary:** The email is a formal message from a "Chiar.mo Coordinatore del corso dottorale in ICT prof. Di Ruscio" (Coordination Officer for the PhD in ICT Professor Di Ruscio) to the recipient. The recipient is being sent a completed and signed form outlining a course. **Actionable Tasks:** 1. **Review and Confirm Completeness:** Carefully read the completed and signed form to ensure all required information is accurately present. 2. **Attach the Form:** Attach the completed form to this email. 3. **Send the Form:** Send the attached form to the recipient. 4. **Express Good Wishes:** Compose a polite and cordial message to the recipient, wishing them a happy New Year. 5. **Verify Sender Information:** Ensure the email is sent from a valid and trusted source. Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on any of these points or add more detail! --- Chiar.mo Coordinatore del corso dottorale in ICT prof. Di Ruscio, come da guida utente, in allegato, invio compilata e firmata quanto specificato in oggetto. Grazie. L’occasione è gradita per porgere i migliori auguri di buon anno! Un saluto cordiale,
todoist-status:: ◼️
- [[2026-02-04]] Proposta per Univaq On Air - Dottorandi di Ricerca
todoist-desc:: Weblink: [Outlook](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAiamtsPAAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) Email Content Summary: Proposal for the Univaq podcast to feature a series of interventions by research PhD students across various scientific areas and schools. The initiative aligns with the goal to narrate the life of an important and dynamic academic community. Seeking opinion and coordination for necessary steps from the coordinator of the podcast. No specific deadlines mentioned.
todoist-desc:: [Web Link](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0AjoVpQvBez0Ss5ZY2WGWEJgAIjj4wRQAA&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) Okay, here’s a task description based on the email content "ECMFA 2026 submission assignment," designed to be actionable and clearly outlined: **Task Title:** Complete ECMFA 2026 Submission – [Specify Document Name/Format - e.g., Final Report, Presentation, etc.] **Description:** This task requires you to finalize and submit the ECMFA 2026 submission, specifically [State the specific document/deliverable - e.g., the final report, the presentation slides, the data analysis]. This is a crucial step in ensuring the successful completion of the ECMFA 2026 project. **Actionable Steps:** 1. **Review Submission Guidelines:** Thoroughly review the official ECMFA 2026 submission guidelines document located at [Insert Link to Document Here – VERY IMPORTANT]. Pay close attention to formatting requirements, data sources, and required elements. 2. **Gather Required Data:** Collect all necessary data and information as outlined in the guidelines. This may involve [List specific data sources - e.g., accessing the database, reviewing reports, performing specific calculations]. 3. **Format and Organize Content:** Organize your submission content in a clear, logical, and consistent format. Ensure all sections are properly labeled and aligned. 4. **Proofread and Edit:** Carefully proofread your entire submission for any grammatical errors, typos, or inconsistencies. Check formatting for consistency. 5. **Submit the Submission:** Submit the completed document through [Specify Submission Method - e.g., Outlook, SharePoint, designated portal]. 6. **[Optional - If applicable] - Submit Feedback:** If you have any questions or require clarification on any part of the submission, please send a brief email to [Your Email Address] within 24 hours of submitting. **Deadline:** [Insert Deadline – Be realistic!] **Priority:** [High/Medium/Low - Assign a priority level.] **Assigned To:** [Your Name/Team Name] **Notes:** If you encounter any roadblocks or require assistance, please don’t hesitate to reach out to [Contact Person/Team for Support - e.g., your supervisor, the ECMFA team]. --- **To help me refine this further and make it even more tailored, could you tell me:*****What kind of document is this submission for?** (Report, presentation, data analysis, etc.?) ***Are there any specific guidelines or requirements you want to highlight?** (e.g., specific data sources, format requirements, length restrictions?)
todoist-labels:: #outlook365
todoist-status:: ◼️
- [[2026-02-04]] Manuscript in your Reviewer Center - IEEE Software, SWSI-2026-01-0024
todoist-desc:: From: onbehalfof@manuscriptcentral.com Received: 2026-01-12T07:28:14Z ✉: [Web Link](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAiX6FN1AAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) --- Okay, here’s a synthesis of the email content, transforming it into actionable tasks for completing the task of reviewing the manuscript. I’ve focused on clarity and providing specific steps. **Task Summary:** Review the IEEE Software manuscript ("SWSI-2026-01-0024") for adherence to peer review guidelines, focusing on confidentiality and providing substantive feedback. **Actionable Tasks & Breakdown:** 1. **Review Policies Understanding (Priority: High):*****Action:** Thoroughly read the reviewer policies document (link: [https://magazines.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/submit-your-article-for-peer-review/about-the-peer-review-process]) to understand the specific requirements for content, format, and communication. Pay close attention to the emphasis on confidentiality regarding AI-generated feedback. ***Deliverable:** A concise summary of key policy points – particularly concerning what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable review comments. 2. **Manuscript Review & Initial Assessment (Priority: High):*****Action:** Begin reviewing the manuscript – specifically focusing on the sections related to the agentic system engineering context. Identify key sections: ***Abstract:** Ensure it accurately summarizes the manuscript's purpose and scope. ***Introduction:** Evaluate the relevance of the context engineering concept to the manuscript’s topic. ***Methodology:** Assess the methods used – are they appropriate for the context? ***Results & Discussion:** Confirm the results are logically supported by the methods. ***Conclusion:** Assess the final conclusion – is it justified and well-supported? ***Deliverable:** A brief (1-2 paragraph) summary of initial impressions, highlighting potential areas of concern (e.g., a lack of specific details, unclear methodology). 3. **Identify Key Concerns - Confidentiality & AI Feedback (Priority: Medium):*****Action:** Specifically look for the sections where the reviewer emphasizes caution regarding sharing information about the manuscript with AI platforms for text generation. ***Deliverable:** A list of 2-3 *specific* concerns regarding the manuscript's use of AI-generated content, which you will need to address in your review. 4. **Content Review & Feedback (Priority: High):*****Action:** Address the following points based on your concerns: ***Referencing:** Ensure all citations are accurate and properly formatted. ***Specificity:** Ensure claims are supported by evidence. ***Context:** Clarify the agentic system engineering context. Does it adequately demonstrate its significance? ***AI Integration:** Carefully assess the role and influence of AI. Does it feel like a supplementary tool or integral to the core work? (The reviewer’s concern about shared information is key here.) ***Deliverable:** Draft review comments addressing each identified concern, focusing on providing specific, constructive feedback. (Focus on the *why* behind your comments – not just stating the problem.) 5. **Review Score Sheet & Submission (Priority: Medium):*****Action:** Carefully and accurately fill out the review score sheet, ensuring all sections are completed (Confidential Comments, Public Comments, and any other required fields). ***Deliverable:** Completed review score sheet, with all required fields filled. 6. **Communication Protocol (Priority: Medium):*****Action:** Respond promptly to any questions from the editor or reviewer. Be professional and courteous. ***Deliverable:** A record of your communication attempts – noting the date, content, and outcome of each communication. 7. **Final Review & Submission (Priority: Low):** Once you've completed all steps, submit the manuscript for review. **Important Note:** Document *everything*– your reasoning behind the feedback, specific examples, and any changes made during the review process. This will provide a clear audit trail for future review decisions. --- Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on any of these tasks or provide more specific examples! --- IEEE Software, SWSI-2026-01-0024 manuscript type: SWSI: Agentic System Engineering (Sep/Oct 2026) "Context Engineering for Software Engineering Agents" 12-Jan-2026 Dear Prof. Di Ruscio: Thank you for agreeing to review the above reference manus
todoist-status:: ◼️
- [[2026-02-04]] Re: FW: FW: Un breve corso su Quantum Computing
- [[2026-02-04]] 🧠 Verifica accesso e documentazione candidati per Commissione bando PO SSD INFO-01/A - Gran Sasso Science Institute #ai-generated-main-task
todoist-desc:: ✉: https://s.diruscio.org/JSHbw 📱: https://s.diruscio.org/xLukn Sender: Lorenzo Di Giandomenico <noreply@github.com> Sent: Wed Feb 04 2026 11:47:49 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time) --- @lorenzodigiand has invited you to collaborate on the UniPrograms/sgms repository. Visit https://github.com/UniPrograms/sgms/invitations to accept or decline this invitation. You can also visit [lorenzodigiand - Overview](https://github.com/lorenzodigiand) to learn a bit more about @lorenzodigiand. This invitation will expire in 7 days. Some helpful tips: - If you get a 404 page, make sure you’re signed in as davidediruscio. - Too many emails from @lorenzodigiand? You can block them by visiting https://github.com/settings/blocked_users?block_user=lorenzodigiand or report abuse at [Sign in for Software Support and Product Help - GitHub Support](https://github.com/contact/report-abuse?report=lorenzodigiand) --- View it on GitHub: https://github.com/UniPrograms/sgms ---
todoist-desc:: From: emanuela.botta@univaq.it Received: 2026-02-02T18:21:15Z ✉: [Web Link](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAil0oiaAAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) --- --- Care e cari, finalmente sono arrivati i decreti attuativi e presto apriremo le iscrizioni, i tempi sono molto stretti perché il percorso dovrà chiudersi entro il 30 giugno 2026. Vi scrivo per quanto riguarda l’orario dell'area comune. Come lo scorso anno
todoist-desc:: From: onbehalfof@manuscriptcentral.com Received: 2026-01-08T15:15:16Z ✉: [Web Link](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAiVbuR5AAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) --- Okay, here's a summary of the email, formatted as a task description with actionable steps: **Task: Review Manuscript - 'Evaluating Incompatible Third-party Library API Usage in LLM-based Code Completion'****Objective:** To thoroughly review the provided manuscript titled "Evaluating Incompatible Third-party Library API Usage in LLM-based Code Completion" submitted to *Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology*. **Instructions:** 1. **Locate Manuscript:** Access the manuscript at: * [ScholarOne Manuscripts](https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tosem?URL_MASK=f8e067daf3c948909c391290bf2da5b7) * Alternatively, access the manuscript through the system at: [http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tosem (in the reviewer center)] 2. **System Login & Paper Download:** Follow the instructions to log in to the system and download the manuscript. 3. **Review and Identify Missing Literature:*** Identify any relevant literature that is missing from the reference list. * For each relevant paper: * Collect the names of all authors. * Retrieve the paper title. * Retrieve the journal/book title where the paper was published. * Find the year of publication. * Obtain the URL link to the paper. * Justify why this source is relevant – highlight a key aspect or contribution. 4. **Report Generation:** Create a report summarizing your findings, including the bibliographic information of the relevant literature. 5. **Report Formatting:** Use the provided template for report formatting. **Deliverable:** A completed report containing the collected bibliographic information and justification for the identified literature. **Notes:** The primary focus is on verifying the accuracy and completeness of the manuscript's bibliographic information and identifying potential missing sources of literature. Ensure the report highlights key findings and is well-organized. --- 08-Jan-2026 Dear Dr. Di Ruscio, Thank you for agreeing to review the following paper submitted for possible publication to Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology: Evaluating Incompatible Third-party Library API Usage in LLM-based Co
todoist-desc:: Subject: Verbalizzazione esami I appello sessione invernale a.a. 2025/2026 Sender: dsu.uprodid@strutture.univaq.it Weblink: [Outlook](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAii1IeYAAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) Summary: There are persistent technical issues with exam bookings for the current winter session at UniVAQ. The UPRODID office is working on resolving anomalies affecting the II (09/02/2026 - 13/02/2026) and III (30/03/2026 - 01/04/2026 / 08/04/2026 - 10/04/2026) exam calls. For the first exam call, some exams for students enrolled in 2024/2025 have been mistakenly recorded under the 2025/2026 session, which is an anomaly despite having no real consequences on student records. If exam records have not been finalized, corrections can be made as follows: - If the booking exists only for the 2025/2026 session, delete the assigned grade, add the student to the 2024/2025 session, and upload the exam outcome. - If there is a double booking, cancel the grade for the 2025/2026 session and insert it into the 2024/2025 session. Subtasks: 1. Monitor and coordinate with UPRODID for resolving booking issues in the II and III exam calls (due by 09/02/2026 and 30/03/2026 respectively). 2. Verify exam records for students of the 2024/2025 academic year recorded under the 2025/2026 session. 3. For exams not yet finalized: - Eliminate grades assigned only to the 2025/2026 session. - Reassign students and upload results correctly under the 2024/2025 session. - Address double bookings by cancelling 2025/2026 grades and inserting them in 2024/2025 session. Best regards, Angela Torelli Office of Departmental Program Planning and Quality Assurance University of L'Aquila
todoist-desc:: From: proget@strutture.univaq.it Received: 2026-02-03T08:55:55Z ✉: [Web Link](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAil0oiyAAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) --- Okay, here's a concise summary of the email content, broken down into actionable tasks, with a focus on the key information and deadlines (as inferred from the text): **Summary:** The email is an announcement from the University of Vienna regarding a research funding call for projects related to the Vitality initiative. The deadline for proposal submission is 3.03.2026. The sender requires recipients to submit proposals via email to the designated address (bando.vitality@univaq.it). They are also providing the proposal and supporting documentation. **Actionable Tasks:** 1. **Review Proposal Guidelines:** Carefully examine the attached document (Allegates A & B) to understand the submission requirements and formatting. 2. **Draft Proposal:** Begin drafting the proposal according to the specified schema. 3. **Submit Proposal:** Send the proposal and supporting documents to the provided email address (bando.vitality@univaq.it) by the deadline (3.03.2026). 4. **Distribute Documentations:** Ensure all required documentations are sent as per instructions. 5. **Verify Deadline:** Confirm the deadline is 3.03.2026. 6. **Create Task in Todoist:** Add "Research Funding Proposal - Vitality" to the Todoist task. **Deadline:** 3.03.2026 (as mentioned in the email) Let me know if you’d like me to elaborate on any of these tasks or add more detail. --- Gent.me e gent.mi, vi informiamo che, in data 2 febbraio 2026, è stato pubblicato all'Albo ufficiale di Ateneo il Bando per il finanziamento di progetti di ricerca di Ateneo nell'ambito del progetto Vitality. Le proposte progettuali, redatte secondo l
todoist-status:: ◼️
- [[2026-02-06]] [[Aggiornamento uso fondi progetti]]
todoist-desc:: From: onbehalfof@manuscriptcentral.com Received: 2026-01-12T07:28:14Z ✉: [Web Link](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAiX6FN1AAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) --- Okay, here’s a synthesis of the email content, transforming it into actionable tasks for completing the task of reviewing the manuscript. I’ve focused on clarity and providing specific steps. **Task Summary:** Review the IEEE Software manuscript ("SWSI-2026-01-0024") for adherence to peer review guidelines, focusing on confidentiality and providing substantive feedback. **Actionable Tasks & Breakdown:** 1. **Review Policies Understanding (Priority: High):*****Action:** Thoroughly read the reviewer policies document (link: [https://magazines.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/submit-your-article-for-peer-review/about-the-peer-review-process]) to understand the specific requirements for content, format, and communication. Pay close attention to the emphasis on confidentiality regarding AI-generated feedback. ***Deliverable:** A concise summary of key policy points – particularly concerning what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable review comments. 2. **Manuscript Review & Initial Assessment (Priority: High):*****Action:** Begin reviewing the manuscript – specifically focusing on the sections related to the agentic system engineering context. Identify key sections: ***Abstract:** Ensure it accurately summarizes the manuscript's purpose and scope. ***Introduction:** Evaluate the relevance of the context engineering concept to the manuscript’s topic. ***Methodology:** Assess the methods used – are they appropriate for the context? ***Results & Discussion:** Confirm the results are logically supported by the methods. ***Conclusion:** Assess the final conclusion – is it justified and well-supported? ***Deliverable:** A brief (1-2 paragraph) summary of initial impressions, highlighting potential areas of concern (e.g., a lack of specific details, unclear methodology). 3. **Identify Key Concerns - Confidentiality & AI Feedback (Priority: Medium):*****Action:** Specifically look for the sections where the reviewer emphasizes caution regarding sharing information about the manuscript with AI platforms for text generation. ***Deliverable:** A list of 2-3 *specific* concerns regarding the manuscript's use of AI-generated content, which you will need to address in your review. 4. **Content Review & Feedback (Priority: High):*****Action:** Address the following points based on your concerns: ***Referencing:** Ensure all citations are accurate and properly formatted. ***Specificity:** Ensure claims are supported by evidence. ***Context:** Clarify the agentic system engineering context. Does it adequately demonstrate its significance? ***AI Integration:** Carefully assess the role and influence of AI. Does it feel like a supplementary tool or integral to the core work? (The reviewer’s concern about shared information is key here.) ***Deliverable:** Draft review comments addressing each identified concern, focusing on providing specific, constructive feedback. (Focus on the *why* behind your comments – not just stating the problem.) 5. **Review Score Sheet & Submission (Priority: Medium):*****Action:** Carefully and accurately fill out the review score sheet, ensuring all sections are completed (Confidential Comments, Public Comments, and any other required fields). ***Deliverable:** Completed review score sheet, with all required fields filled. 6. **Communication Protocol (Priority: Medium):*****Action:** Respond promptly to any questions from the editor or reviewer. Be professional and courteous. ***Deliverable:** A record of your communication attempts – noting the date, content, and outcome of each communication. 7. **Final Review & Submission (Priority: Low):** Once you've completed all steps, submit the manuscript for review. **Important Note:** Document *everything*– your reasoning behind the feedback, specific examples, and any changes made during the review process. This will provide a clear audit trail for future review decisions. --- Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on any of these tasks or provide more specific examples! --- IEEE Software, SWSI-2026-01-0024 manuscript type: SWSI: Agentic System Engineering (Sep/Oct 2026) "Context Engineering for Software Engineering Agents" 12-Jan-2026 Dear Prof. Di Ruscio: Thank you for agreeing to review the above reference manus
todoist-desc:: ✉: https://s.diruscio.org/843pJ 📱: https://s.diruscio.org/ZWJDu Sender: Mario Micarelli <micarelliamministrazione@gmail.com> Sent: Wed Feb 04 2026 07:37:07 GMT+0100 (Central European Standard Time) --- The email contains 8 attached file(s) --- Sig. DI RUSCIO DAVIDE, Buongiorno, inoltro documentazione di Vs interesse. Cordialmente L'Amministratore "INFORMATIVA SUL TRATTAMENTO DEI DATI PERSONALI (ex Reg. UE 2016/679) CONSULTABILE SUL SITO: www.sicurezzaeprivacy.eu "; ___________________________________________________________ Per visualizzare e stampare il file allegato in formato PDF è necessario disporre del programma "Adobe Acrobat Reader", liberamente scaricabile dal sito [Adobe: Creative, marketing and document management solutions](http://www.adobe.com) ---
todoist-status:: ◼️
- [[2026-02-07]] Tosem-2024-0255.R2 - Revised Version
todoist-desc:: Weblink: [Outlook](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAiamts0AAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) Email Content Summary: You are requested to review the revised version of the paper titled "Towards AI-Native Software Engineering (SE 3.0): A Vision and a Challenge Roadmap" submitted to Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) with manuscript ID TOSEM-2024-0255.R2. The review is to be completed within 4 weeks. Links to the manuscript system where you can download the paper, update your information, access previous review comments, and submit your review report are provided. Please identify missing relevant papers in the references and include comprehensive bibliographic information in your review report. For any login issues, contact atemplet@gmail.com. Referee guidelines are available at https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/peer-review. This task is assigned considering your role as Davide Di Ruscio, coordinator of the PhD in ICT program at the University of L'Aquila.
todoist-desc:: Subject: Verbalizzazione esami I appello sessione invernale a.a. 2025/2026 Sender: dsu.uprodid@strutture.univaq.it Weblink: [Outlook](https://outlook.office365.com/owa/?ItemID=AAMkADM1NGNiNjk0LTY0ZGUtNDgzOC04MDM5LWNhODNkYWNjNjU4YwBGAAAAAACT6qp78kRgRKuUMBdWEga%2FBwCOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAAAAAEMAACOhWlC8F7PRKzlljZYZYQmAAii1IeYAAA%3D&exvsurl=1&viewmodel=ReadMessageItem) Summary: There are persistent technical issues with exam bookings for the current winter session at UniVAQ. The UPRODID office is working on resolving anomalies affecting the II (09/02/2026 - 13/02/2026) and III (30/03/2026 - 01/04/2026 / 08/04/2026 - 10/04/2026) exam calls. For the first exam call, some exams for students enrolled in 2024/2025 have been mistakenly recorded under the 2025/2026 session, which is an anomaly despite having no real consequences on student records. If exam records have not been finalized, corrections can be made as follows: - If the booking exists only for the 2025/2026 session, delete the assigned grade, add the student to the 2024/2025 session, and upload the exam outcome. - If there is a double booking, cancel the grade for the 2025/2026 session and insert it into the 2024/2025 session. Subtasks: 1. Monitor and coordinate with UPRODID for resolving booking issues in the II and III exam calls (due by 09/02/2026 and 30/03/2026 respectively). 2. Verify exam records for students of the 2024/2025 academic year recorded under the 2025/2026 session. 3. For exams not yet finalized: - Eliminate grades assigned only to the 2025/2026 session. - Reassign students and upload results correctly under the 2024/2025 session. - Address double bookings by cancelling 2025/2026 grades and inserting them in 2024/2025 session. Best regards, Angela Torelli Office of Departmental Program Planning and Quality Assurance University of L'Aquila
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
