[TYPES] Two-tier reviewing process

[Rajeev Alur]

>> we simply have way too little time to evaluate conference
>> submissions fairly and robustly 
Implicit in this statement, and much of the discussion so far about the 
review process, is
the assumption that conference reviewers are somehow failing.
The real problem is with the current submission process that is causing
enormous overload: there are too many conferences, everyone (experts and
non-experts) is writing and submitting too many papers, but there are
too few (so-called) expert reviewers (the challenge of getting serious
reviews in a timely manner is a headache for journal editors also).
If the total number of papers that need to be reviewed in a given year 
across
programming languages reduces, the quality of review process (and the 
quality
of research, also) will improve.
In the current set-up, there is no "cost" associated with submitting 
work that is not
yet quite ready, or resubmitting a rejected paper repeatedly, or trying 
to make 2
papers out of one.
One proposal to fix this is to enforce a rule such as:
You can be a co-author on at most 2 submissions to  top-tier SIGPLAN
sponsored conferences in a given calendar year.
Such a rule would put some burden on authors to submit their best work 
to conferences,
and reviewing would be less onerous and better.
We can always have lots of workshops where authors can present their 
ongoing work,
or papers that got rejected from POPL.
--rajeev