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

[Christopher Dutchyn]

On 2010-01-14, at 10:20 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> 1. random-choice is good

As a relative outsider, my POPL publication record is "in my future", please recognize that I cannot speak with the authority and experience that others wield.  But, my gut-reaction to this is "NO!".  Recognizing that there is arbitrariness in the selection process doesn't mean we should institutionalize it -- imagine the impact on POPL's reputation as demonstrated by the following conversation:

	In a hallway somewhere
		A) "My paper was accepted to POPL -- a premier PL conference."
		B) "Don't they pick those things randomly?"  (thinking to himself: it was pure luck.)

I believe the impact of developing a reputation of picking randomly has no upside, and significant risk/cost.

I would suggest an alternative way to select 40 from among the 80 meritous papers: how do they fit together into a well-rounded conference?

There should be some Group 1 "this area is now solved, here are the details" papers -- these would arise from considering the hot topics over the last few years.
There should be some Group 2 "I've made significant progress" papers, in current hot topics; preferably grouped by topic into sessions of three papers, almost a mini-workshop.  If papers can't be put into a session in that way, then they're candidates for "reject until next year."
There should be some Group 3 "this is novel/unusual/risky/interesting" which move the area into new directions; these are subjective criteria, and the PC needs to actively encourage these potentially incomplete, but strong submissions.

This scheme has the advantage that a strong Group 2, but rejected, paper might still be a POPL paper next year because next year it will fit into the track better.  I would consider resubmitting papers for which POPL is the right audience/venue.  I would ask that the reviewers state "acceptable but didn't fit" for all of the 40 papers rejected on that basis.

Furthermore, I believe the PC and especially the chair, have a responsibility to always accept "off-cycle" papers that are seminal, head-and-shoulders above the pack.

> 2. shortening presentations

I like this idea.

A junior researcher, 

Christopher Dutchyn
Assistant Professor, Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/pipermail/types-announce/attachments/20100114/8a09c942/attachment-0001.htm