[sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers

[Vern Paxson]

Apologies for the not-fully-clear kickoff note.  In any case, the development
of this thread has nudged my thinking towards what you and others have framed,
along the lines of:

> 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.

My reading of the discussion is that we have pretty good agreement (among
those who have chimed in) on these two, with this one:

> 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.

perhaps not as agreed-upon.  On this one, my thinking is in line with yours:

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 paper should be new, unpublished work. 

to which I'll follow-up to Joe's comment shortly.

		Vern