[sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers

[Joe Touch]

Jennifer Rexford wrote:
> I think there are two issues getting mixed together a bit here, that
> would be useful to split apart.  First, should we require the longer
> paper to be a non-trivial delta over the short paper to be considered at
> a conference?  

The ACM already requires this, except with explicit advance permission,
FWIW, though the ACM doesn't consider the integration of a set of
papers, which IMO is sufficient delta as well.

> Second, if the long paper is being considered, should it
> be evaluated based only on the delta or on the entire body of work.

That seems to be the most important point.

> If we judge
> the paper only on the part that differs, it discourages work that
> fleshes out a clever idea, or discourages publishing the spark of the
> idea in a workshop beforehand.

And that seems the key - if we judge only on the new work, we seem to be
discouraging our own workshops.

Joe