[sigcomm] attendance policies for SIGCOMM-affiliated events

[Joe Touch]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Larry Peterson wrote:
> Joe, I disagree that it's a private meeting. The CFP is published
> widely, anyone can submit, and the these papers are the primary
> factor in deciding who can attend.

Private meeting. Public proceedings, public call. We may be splitting
hairs here, but private parties are often publicly known of a-priori and
publicly reported post-facto.

> Just to clarify another point (and I'm going from memory here),
> the only case I remember a decision being made to invite an
> author of a paper not accepted was to invite a student that had
> applied for a travel grant.

For HotNets-I, I was.*

My notes from the meeting indicate a few others - my notes indicate 6
other names not on the PC or author list, i.e., 7 in total, and that's
just the ones I could find.

> BTW, I'm not claiming that the chairs have never invited anyone
> that was not a student or a co-author, just that the numbers are
> very small. I could make an argument that one of the PC and chair's
> obligations is to put together as interesting of program as
> possible, and one that has the most value to the authors (e.g.,
> in terms of feedback). Having 4-5 invitations to use at their
> discretion is not an unreasonable tool to achieve that goal.

As above, I have evidence of 7. There were another 7 on the PC, which
are also chair-based invitations. That's 14 out of 65 (as reported in
Jan 2003 CCR). That's 20%.

Consider invited papers - 20% would be huge (5 papers at Sigcomm, or 50
at Infocom).

Is this a tool to achieve a goal? Perhaps. The key question is whether
it's a tool that a public group should allow at meetings they sponsor.

Joe

- --------------------

* FWIW, HotNets-I had other problems, notably that the reviews received
were horribly incomplete (of 3 reviews, two gave only a summary rank
with no ranks for the 6 component questions, and one had only the
scores, with no substantiating text).

We can debate that as another thread.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDX7cpE5f5cImnZrsRAuMZAJ975PXDN685U8Xce2z+XNmlzb/SnwCbBJO/
uDa7pI2qRN+ouFZ4jArbzcI=
=EHmq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----