[sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers

[Joe Touch]

Fred Douglis wrote:
>> In my mind it, therefore, really boils down to ensuring that there is 
>> a large enough delta between the two
>> submissions.  If and when that threshold is crossed, then the paper is 
>> eligible for consideration and should
>> be evaluated on its own merit without penalizing it because the 
>> earlier submission.
> I think I misunderstood some of the initial thread from Vern, and the 
> ensuing responses to my reply have been a big help.  I too would agree 
> that (a) there has to be a decent delta over previous work, and (b) the 
> ensuing paper does get evaluated on its full merits, not merely the 
> delta.  I would also argue (c) a synthesis of multiple workshop papers 
> is not a delta from the sum of the earlier papers and therefore would 
> not merit acceptance. 

Synthesis should be a delta; it should describe how the pieces fit
together, in addition to just concatenating the pieces.

> I do think that a sizable chunk of any SIGCOMM
> paper should be new, unpublished work. 

If "sizeable", then we have a new criteria that argues against
publishing earlier, preliminary work in workshops (which seems to be the
current situation).

I.e., it seems more appropriate under the current system to 'spring'
research on the community at Sigcomm (easier to anonymize, easier to
prove the contribution delta) rather than to vet work at workshops.

If that's the case, why bother having workshops?

Joe