Hash: SHA1
Hi, all,
(speaking as an individual, not TCCC chair, FWIW):
Yow. There's a lot to catch up with here, so I'll try to be brief and
cover as much as I can...
- ----
The Comsoc already requires one full registration per paper, with
allowances for a single person to present multiple papers (up to three).
The only needed modification would be to require that the registration
be one of the authors.
Many of you have noted that no single fixed rule is always sufficient.
There's already allowances for the meeting chairs to grant exceptions
where warranted (illness, visa issues, etc.) - those allowances, coupled
with the judgment of the chairs, should be sufficient.
Regarding presentation quality:
The authors aren't always the best presenters, but this is the best way
we have to ensure that the presenter is more than just a stand-in.
Presumably if you're listed as an author, you're in a better position to
give a presentation than an arbitrary stand-in. If you're concerned
about presentation quality, that can be checked only by reviewing the
presentations, not the papers, and that's not feasible.
Regarding abuses:
Abuses should be noted and acted on by the IEEE. The IEEE already has
mechanisms to do this for plagiarism; that office could also note
"failures to attend" and act on them when necessary.
Yes, this can be "gamed" by adding a professional presenter's name to
every paper from an organization, but how would we ever know that
anyway? IMO, this is simple and reasonable, and as good as any other
solution I can imagine.
Regarding underprivileged attendees:
Submitting a paper to a conference is, IMO, an implicit agreement to
participate. The IEEE has resources to support underprivileged
attendees, and perhaps we could make that better known. We can also look
into ways to allow underprivileged authors to present remotely.
Ultimately, however, if you know you can't come to a venue or if there
is no support for remote presentations, you should not send your paper
there. Conferences and workshops are not just publication venues - they
are interaction venues. There are also other venues - either local, or
journal/letters - where work can also be presented without incurring
travel costs.
Regarding the fees being high:
As someone who has helped organize conferences for ACM and IEEE for over
a decade, I can give you some estimates. First, registration costs
around $20 per person - websites aren't free, nor are staff, nor are
credit card fees. Coffee breaks and lunches cost around $75/day -
keeping in mind you're renting the space, the tables, the staff, etc. as
well as the food. Banquet dinners cost $80, and receptions cost $50. So
a typical 3-day meeting is over $375 just on food and processing costs.
Now add meeting room rental, A/V power strips, wireless networking, etc.
Add in a percentage to pay for the Comsoc to negotiate hotel contracts
and insure us against loss and legal action, and that's basically it.
As Henning noted, costs have increased because expectations have
increased (wifi, lunches) and attendance has decreased (per meeting and
as an aggregate of all meetings).
Universities aren't free, FWIW. That meeting at Harvard may have had a
fee of $0, but it still had a cost - Harvard just sponsored it
internally. Not all universities are in a position to do that, esp.
given furlough days, layoffs, and other budget problems of late. My
experience is that the costs are not all that different from hotel-based
meetings when the school doesn't provide a subsidy.
Yes, we can pushback on the costs, and ask for things like 1-day
registrations, etc. - that works for large meetings, but doesn't scale
down to small ones. If you don't like these costs, prepare to have some
of the features above omitted.
FWIW, I don't endorse treating students with less service. It's hard
enough for them to climb through the ranks. Taking away the social
networking opportunities of dinners, receptions, etc. is something I
hope we would want to avoid. (PS - it's also exactly the opposite of the
trend to have more "nearly PhD" and "student" work-in-progress sessions
and mingling dinners).
I hope that's all useful to the discussion.
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
iEYEARECAAYFAksZhXcACgkQE5f5cImnZruhawCgoCvq6TCo0gGMJ/KmL3jfs2Tb
A/gAoIT4J5v+0H7tkW5y+fY8mIAPrUu8
=jUz9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment