[sigcomm] attendance policies for SIGCOMM-affiliated events

[Larry Peterson]

Let me try to say a couple things about HotNets, which I understand
is at the heart of this discussion. The history is that HotNets was
created through a grass-roots effort, outside the the SIGCOMM umbrella.
To help lower the barrier-to-entry, we asked SIGCOMM to sponsor, so
we could leverage existing know-how and infrastructure. Thus, I strongly
endorse Jen's observation that SIGCOMM can play a role in helping get
a new workshop off the ground.

I also strongly believe that there is a valuable place for workshops
with limited attendance. I don't think anyone is disputing that
point.

As a practical matter, once you invite one author per paper, the PC
and SC, and as many students as you find room for (typically co-authors
on accepted papers and co-authors on rejected papers), you've pretty
much filled out the workshop. My recollection is that the number of
invitations to play with is quite small, and usually go to a
non-student co-author.

So, in my view, it seems to come down to two alternatives:

1) HotNets continues with SIGCOMM sponsorship, remains closed,
    but has a more transparent admissions policy; or

2) HotNets leaves the SIGCOMM nest.

Jen points to IMW as an example of a workshop "growing up" but
I don't think that applies to HotNets, which has to remain a
workshop to maintain its value... as a place to publish early
ideas and vision papers. HotNets can survive without SIGCOMM
sponsorship, but I worry that the extra burden of running a
workshop will make it harder to get people to volunteer.

Regarding a transparent policy, I think we're pretty close to
having one (see above). Said another way, the PC decides who
attends based on the papers that are submitted.

Larry


On Oct 25, 2005, at 9:36 AM, Jennifer Rexford wrote:

> Vern,
>
> Thanks for launching the discussion.  I have a few thoughts to add,  
> with the
> goal of encouraging more discussion.  First, I think that,  
> realistically,
> some events need limited attendance in their first couple of years,  
> if for
> no other reason than the fact that it is hard to organize a venue  
> when you
> don't know how big the audience will be.  In addition, limited- 
> attendance
> events help build the energy necessary for a sub-community to come  
> together
> by facilitating more discussion, though frankly the size limits for  
> really
> achieving this goal are pretty tight, like 30-40 people I would guess.
>
> I think many small "start up" events could easily forego SIG  
> sponsorship if
> they have a natural way to contain cost -- having basically no  
> fixed costs
> (e.g., a university meeting room, if a free one is available) and  
> having all
> variable costs covered by registration fees -- and aren't worried that
> someone will sue them after a slip-and-fall accident... ;)  That said,
> having the SIG be able to sponsor such start-up events might lower the
> barrier to starting new and exciting workshops and conferences by  
> carrying
> the financial risk, arranging publication of proceedings (if needed),
> advertising the call for papers and the program, branding the  
> event, etc.
> Creating new events is yeoman service to the community, and we  
> should do
> what we can to make it easier for dedicated volunteers to do their  
> jobs,
> which includes sponsoring new events that are trying to gauge  
> community
> interest or fill a previously-overlooked need.
>
> So, personally, I think it would be nice for the SIG to support  
> limited
> attendance events, at least for the first year or two.  That said,  
> I think a
> transparent attendance policy would be crucial, given the goals the  
> SIG has
> for fairness and openness.  (As someone mentioned at the business  
> meeting,
> event organizers always have an option of foregoing SIG sponsorship  
> if they
> want complete autonomy in determining attendance policies.)  The word
> "transparent" might not be strong enough, but I hesitate to suggest  
> exactly
> what the policy should be, as it may depend on the event.  Clearly,  
> you want
> at least one author for each paper, and the program and steering  
> committees,
> to be able to attend.  Beyond that, do you favor other authors of  
> accepted
> papers?  FIFO?  Random?  I don't know.  Given that restricted  
> attendance is
> motivated by the desire to encourage discussion, having many more  
> people
> than authors, PC, and SC might too many anyway.  Beyond a certain  
> size, why
> not have open attendance anyway?
>
> However, once an event is successful enough to have a large community
> interest, and to sustain itself, I personally think it makes sense  
> to have
> open attendance go hand in hand with SIG sponsorship.  In some  
> cases, this
> might argue for some changes in the nature of the event.  For  
> example, the
> Internet Meaurement Workshop (which had closed attendance the first  
> couple
> of years, due to venue size constraints the first year and a desire  
> to keep
> the event a "workshop" with lots of discussion) ultimately became an
> open-attenance Conference once it became clear that we had a large
> subcommunity with lots of mature work on our hands.  Once an event  
> is off
> the ground, I think it should take on a life of its own, and adapt  
> to the
> community needs as best it can.  After the initial "burn in" period, I
> believe that the goal of the SIG to serve its larger community  
> trumps the
> goals achieved by limited attendance.
>
> Anyway, that's my 0.02 Euro...
>
> -- Jen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sigcomm-bounces at postel.org [mailto:sigcomm- 
> bounces at postel.org] On
> Behalf Of Vern Paxson
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 1:22 AM
> To: sigcomm at postel.org
> Subject: [sigcomm] attendance policies for SIGCOMM-affiliated events
>
> At the last SIGCOMM business meeting, one of the issues we framed for
> discussion by the SIGCOMM community concerns attendance policies at
> SIGCOMM-affiliated events such as HotNets.  The main question is to  
> what
> degree should such events be given latitude to limit their attendance
> along dimensions such as the following:
>
>     - limiting size in order to facilitate discussion
>     - given limited attendance, imposing criteria on who can attend,
>       such as paper presenters / PC members / paper authors / paper
>       submitters
>     - filling some limited-attendance slots by invitation
>
> There was considerable discussion at the meeting of this topic, which
> I imperfectly summarize as:
>
>     (1) A view by quite a few who commented at the microphone that
>         limited attendance has utility for some events and that
>         SIGCOMM should find ways to facilitate this.
>
>     (2) A view by others (not as many at the microphone) that any
>         policy other than first-come-first-serve is counter to the
>         principles of fairness (both to individuals and in terms of
>         how the SIG uses its resources) by which the SIG should abide.
>
>     (3) A question as to whether smaller venues that benefit from
>         closed attendance need SIG sponsorship anyway.  Benefits of
>         sponsorship include raising awareness of the event and  
> providing
>         a means/imprimatur for publishing proceedings for the event.
>         Some questioned whether small events need proceedings; others
>         view this as desirable as it makes publicly available the
>         research ideas that went into the event.
>
>     (4) The view that if attendance is closed, the invitation policy
>         needs to be made clear.
>
>     (5) Notions of pursuing hybrids in which some slots are left open
>         to first-come-first-serve, and more generally with  
> experimenting
>         with different forms to see what works best.
>
>     (6) Thoughts on how to "mitigate" the impact of an event being
>         closed, such as by recording some of the discussion to make
>         it available to those who were not able to attend (which on  
> the
>         other hand some viewed as likely to dampen the nature of the
>         exchanges).
>
> We'd like to solicit further views from the community to get a  
> sense of
> whether there's rough agreement on the best policy for the SIG to  
> adopt.
> Please let us know your thoughts.
>
> - Vern, speaking as SIGCOMM vi-chair
> _______________________________________________
> sigcomm mailing list
> sigcomm at postel.org
> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm
>
> _______________________________________________
> sigcomm mailing list
> sigcomm at postel.org
> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm
>
>