Oakland 2010 Program Committee Meeting

Preview:

DESCRIPTION

Oakland 2010 Program Committee Meeting. belittle. authentication. dischargeable. bid. electioneer. indecipherable. inheritability . inexactitude. public relations . sanction . vomit-grass. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Oakland 2010Program Committee

Meeting

authentication

electioneerdischargeable

indecipherableinheritability

inexactitudepublic relations

sanction vomit-grass

belittle

bid

Avail yourself of these means to communicate to us at seasonable intervals a copy of your journal,

notes & observations of every kind, putting into cipher whatever might do injury if betrayed.

Jefferson’s instructions to Captain Lewis

Review ProcessSubmissions After Round 1 After Round 2 After Round 3 Today

0

50

100

150

200

237

170

96

70 62

Two

Revi

ews

One

mor

e re

view

One

-tw

o m

ore

revi

ews

Sub-mis-sions

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Today

3024 22

1410

SoK

59

289

268

155

51

3

All Research Submissions (825 reviews)

1: "Hopeless"2: "Strong Reject"3: "Weak Reject"4: "Weak Accept"5: "Accept"6: "Strong Accept"

1

48

108122

48

3

Discuss Papers (330 reviews)

4

40

22

22

18

1All SoK Papers (107 reviews)

Reviewing Lowlights/HighlightsOut of 237+30 research+SoK submissions:

• Number of papers with no “weak reject” (3) or worse reviews:

• Number of papers with no “reject” (2) or worse reviews:

• Total number of reviews with overall merit 6:

0 For every submitted paper, there is at least one PC member who thinks that paper should be rejected!

3+5

3+1 300% improvement from last year!

Plan for Meeting

• Today: (now-~5:30)– Discuss each “discuss” paper– Classify as: accept, reject, revisit– Research papers first, SoK papers

• Tomorrow: (8:30-1pm)– Make final decisions on all papers

Target: Accept ~30 research papers, 2-5 SoK papers2009: 262008: 28

To see the discussion order:Search: order:order

Discussion Lead• Summarize neutrally

what the paper is about• Summarize the non-

attending reviews• Present your own views• Update your review to

reflect any important issues that come up in discussion

Reminders

• No decision is final until meeting closes

• People in the room may have conflicts with other papers: avoid making unnecessary comparisons

• Please don’t leak information that compromises reviewer anonymity

Recommended