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

[Manuela Bujorianu]

> I would like to push for the idea that we accept many more
> papers (perhaps double the present number) and present them at poster
> sessions and have them appear in the proceedings as is done at most of
> the big AI conferences.

I would like to complete this with the practise of submission  
acceptance at control engineering conferences: 40% acceptance rate for  
the soundness of reviewing process and parallel sessions plus  
interactive presentations (i.e. posters) to accommodate all accepted  
papers.

> The other point I would like to make is
> that we as reviewers are far too obsessed with polished but incremental
> papers and in the theory conferences (STOC/FOCS/LICS/ICALP) with "hard
> but boring" problems.

Perhaps it will be worthy to remember at this point the practise at  
conferences in mathematics: no reviewing, abstract publication only -  
people meet to socialise and team up for writing journal articles.

Apologies for intruding, I never attended POPL!

With best seasonal wishes,

Manuela