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

[Riccardo Pucella]

A quick 2 cents on one of Mike Mislove's comments:

> Given this disparity, the number of papers accepted could be increased
> by holding poster sessions, as Prakash suggests, but I have concerns
> about the effectiveness of such a venue for communicating new results
> even to those who may be interested in them. I also believe poster
> session papers would not receive the same regard in promotions and
> tenure considerations those selected for full presentation at the
> meeting.

My experience with poster papers is mainly from AI conferences. There, there is no distinction between poster papers and presented papers: same number of pages in the proceedings (8,10,whatever), and no indication in the proceedings which papers were posters and which were presented.

The poster/presented distinction is purely in terms of which papers get talks, and which get, well, posters. The choice of which is mostly done using a "what would make the most interesting talk" type of question, as opposed to "what's the most important result?"

 Cheers,
 Riccardo