[sigcomm] attendance policies for SIGCOMM-affiliated events

[Roch Guerin]

I agree that closed should not be equated with cliquish, but at the same 
time lets be realistic as a workshop that remains a closed venue over 
the years will end-up being viewed as cliquish, whether it is perception 
or reality.  And I'll argue that if is the perception of many, then it 
is reality.

I personally object to having the SIG continue support venues that 
remain closed over extended periods of time.  I fully endorse allowing 
and even encouraging closed venues to help *start* new activities, but 
at some point these have to grow up and either fly on their own or come 
up with alternative sources of support.

So no, I don't agree with the statement that "thePC should retain the 
right to define the criteria by which the attendees are selected."  That 
is perfectly fine as a transient, but I personally don't find it 
acceptable as a steady-state behavior.

Roch

>I think you unfairly equate selected attendance with cliquish.
>After making sure at least one author per paper got to attend,
>I'd be surprised to learn that IMW didn't also reserve a slot
>for the PC and organizers. After that, is it better to allocate
>slots FCFS than, say, by preferentially inviting student co-authors,
>students that submitted papers, and other co-authors of accepted
>papers?
>
>But I think the exact algorithm misses the point. We give PC's
>the authority to put together the program. For small interactive
>workshops, "the program" includes the set of people in the room
>engaged in discussions over the presentations. In my view, the
>PC should retain the right to define the criteria by which the
>attendees are selected. They should be encouraged to be inclusive,
>in the same way we hope they don't select papers from only their
>friends, but whatever the outcome, the PC and its chair have to be
>entrusted to do the right thing.
>
>Larry
>
>On Nov 5, 2005, at 8:40 AM, Christophe Diot wrote:
>
>  
>
>>2 comments:
>>
>>- you might want to make a differenciation between limited  
>>attendance and
>>selected attendance. IMW was limited (FCFS with priority to  
>>authors) and hotnet
>>is selected (PC chairs chose the participants). I am in favor of  
>>not allowing at
>>all the selected attendance workshop.
>>
>>- writing the motivation will only convince those who want to be  
>>convinced. can
>>you imagine someone writting: the goal is to create a clickish  
>>workshop ... :-)
>>you can find the best politically correct writing, selected  
>>attendance will
>>always look clickish.
>>
>>- we need to mention if the exec committee can decide not to  
>>support a closed
>>attendance workshop.
>>