[sigcomm] attendance policies for SIGCOMM-affiliated events

[Larry Peterson]

You've done a good job of articulating the issues.
We can debate:

     o value of closed (in absolute terms)
     o value of closed (in terms of ROI to SIGCOMM)
     o if closed, how do we select attendees
     o if closed, how many people is too many

I think you're pointing to the 2nd issue as the one on which
we have a disagreement (with the caveat that the ROI is higher
during the first couple of years, so maybe such events are worth
sponsoring as they start).

However, I believe SIGCOMM's investment in HotNets is pretty
small. It was larger when SIGCOMM helped jump start the workshop
by publishing the proceedings, but that's no longer the case.

Does this then boil down to an issue of principle? Maybe...
 From one perspective, framing the issue as one of "fairness
and openness" certainly leads to the position you're taking.
 From another perspective, "fostering scientific dialogue"
seems to be the tag line I'm advocating.

Let me try the following argument. SIGCOMM can't prohibit
private meetings among researchers with common interests.
They happen because they have value, and quite frankly, we
all we to be invited to those meetings because we know their
tremendous value. HotNets is an opportunity for SIGCOMM to
sponsor such a meeting with a much greater degree of fairness
and equal-opportunity than the best of these private meetings.
A much broader and changing set of people get to participate,
and budgets willing, the proceedings might even be published.
My view is that there's room under SIGCOMM's tent to support
a limited number of such events.

Larry

On Nov 9, 2005, at 8:09 AM, Roch Guerin wrote:

> Larry,
>
> This is as good a proposal as we can get, when it comes to outlining
> invitation policies for closed venues.
>
> On the other hand, I think that one of the key issue we have been
> debating is the extent to which closed venues, that are and remain
> closed by design, are of benefits to the whole community at large.
>
> For any venue, you have so called "direct" benefits that are in a form
> that is accessible by all, such as proceedings or recording of the
> sessions that are made available for public viewing.  These are  
> tangible
> items that can be assessed relatively easily.
>
> Then you have what I would call "indirect" benefits that are  
> essentially
> measuring the subsequent impact the venue has in terms of promoting a
> new research agenda or initiating discussions and follow-on work on
> various problems.  In the case of open venues, one can make the case
> that everyone has access to these benefits if they choose to
> participate.  The situation is different for closed venues, which  
> argue
> that a small, selected audience is needed in order to enable the  
> kind of
> interactions that produce such outcomes.  This is I believe the source
> of the debate, as for closed venues the only clear/immediate
> beneficiaries are the attendees and not necessarily the community at
> large.   Arguing that this is the case is where things start being  
> more
> in the realm of opinions than hard evidences, and for which, as Greg
> articulated, there seems to be two different view points.
>
> I know that personally I am not convinced that a venue that  
> persists as
> a closed event represents a good "return on investment" of SIG  
> resources
> in terms of offering sustained benefits to the entire community.  This
> does not mean that such a venue wont be producing good results, but  
> just
> that over time there is a law of diminishing return in terms of the  
> the
> spill-over of these benefits to the rest of the community.  I would
> rather apply SIG resources to foster initiatives in new directions
> (again, these can be closed initially in order to help things get
> started) and support venues that ultimately open-up to let the  
> community
> directly decide how to best derive benefits from those venues.
>
> Roch
>
>
>> In the interest of putting forward a tangible proposal that we can
>> discuss, I propose a transparent policy that roughly matches past
>> practice:
>>
>>   o the PC and SC
>>   o one author per paper
>>   o as many students as we have scholarships for (preferring
>>     co-authors of accepted papers and then co-authors of
>>     submitted papers)
>>   o sponsor representatives (e.g., from NSF)
>>
>> This gets us to roughly 80-90%. Then, at the Chair/PC's discretion:
>>
>>   o as many second authors or authors of rejected papers as we can
>>     fit, perhaps with a slight bias for students/faculty at the  
>> hosting
>>     site.
>>
>> Logistically, the invitation list probably needs to be finalized
>> by the chairs (as people accept or decline), but it seems reasonable
>> to have the PC put forward a list of "invite if room" people based
>> on the discussion during the PC meeting. (I should probably add at
>> this point that all HotNets have had co-chairs, meaning that there's
>> already some checks-and-balances built into the system.)
>>
>> One final point. I know much of this discussion is about perception
>> as much as reality. Here's a small data-point of reality. In looking
>> at the registration list for 3 of the first 4 HotNets (all I have at
>> the moment), I count a total of 181 attendees and 145 unique
>> individuals.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sigcomm mailing list
> sigcomm at postel.org
> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm
>