[sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers

[Joe Touch]

In case there are questions about what either the ACM or IEEE actually
requires, here are the policies:

http://www.acm.org/sig_volunteer_info/conference_manual/6-2-1PUB.HTM
http://www.acm.org/sig_volunteer_info/conference_manual/6-2-2REP.HTM
http://www.acm.org/sig_volunteer_info/conference_manual/6-2-3PPP.HTM

The ACM policies talk primarily about conferences affecting journals,
and do not appear to address workshops. HOWEVER, republication in a
journal IS permitted (see 6.2.2) if there is perceived benefit. It isn't
clear why the ACM policy on journals vs. conferences doesn't equally
apply to workshops vs. conferences, as is done in the IEEE rules:

http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/rights/Multi_Sub_Guidelines_Intro.html
http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/rights/index.html

They permit republication (with attribution and permission), and notably
discuss the multiple stages of publication (including workshops). In
BOTH the ACM and IEEE cases the issue is benefit to the
readership/attendees, and requires only explicit indication of what is
republished (and attribution - which is, IMO cannot be handled _by the
PC_ appropriately with anonymized authorship). Neither policy _requires_
additional material per se.

FWIW, Infocom last year required 'original' submissions, and we followed
the approximately 20% rule, but reviewed the contribution of the paper
in its entirety (not the new material only). This addressed whether the
need for explicit permission for republication applied.

Joe