[sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers

[Vern Paxson]

> But, you noted that we're talking about "workshop papers", Vern used the
> term "short papers".  How do we treat an IMC 6-pager?  It's short, but
> it's from a conference.  What to do?  How about a 10 page paper from the
> foobar workshop?  It's getting long-ish, but it's from a workshop.
> These words ("conference", "workshop", "tech report", etc.) are so
> overloaded that it seems to me we ought to just say what we mean (e.g.,
> "a refereed paper with <= 6 pages" or whatever).

A note I received privately today (forwarded with permission):

	A borderline issue is how to treat papers published in the Allerton
	conference, which are 12 pages.  Many people consider Allerton a
	venue for rapid publication of early results, but it doesn't meet
	the "short paper" definition.  I don't know what we should do about
	those, but the community should have some clear guidance about
	what to expect.

which (again) points out that framing a good line to draw is tricky.

I wonder if there's an angle whereby the key notion is "preliminary" work,
as opposed to short, workshop, or conference.

		Vern