[TYPES/announce] Two phase reviewing for POPL; a response

[Sophia Drossopoulou]

It seems to me that the two phase reviewing proposal is meant to address
the problem that PCs are over-conservative, and they reject quirky  
ideas,
that are not so well worked out.

If so, I have two questions:

1) We already have the shepherding mechanism for such cases: what will
     we achieve by enhancing it into the "two-phase" review? (BTW, Jan  
Vitek,
     as ECOOP PC chair, has strengthened shepherding, so that there was
      a "shepherd"   who would communicate with the authors, and a  
"controller"
       would would give the final "go ahead" to the paper).

2) I suppose we all have some examples of quirky ideas that did not  
make it
      to a conference. What has happened afterwards? Did the authors  
give up,
      disheartened, or did they take the comments into account,  
improve the work,
      and get it accepted somewhere else?

      Also, so we think that such quirky but maybe flawed papers could  
be sufficiently
      improved over the restricted available time period?

Sophia

If I was asked to vote, I would be against the two-phase reviewing  
process, but
then, I may very well be wring: I was initially against the rebuttal  
process, but then,
when I saw it working, I was absolutely convinced.