Hash: SHA1
Hi, Virgilio,
I'll address your concerns in sequence, in the hopes the responses will
be useful to the list members...
Virgilio Rodriguez wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> 1- reducing non-author presenters
>> ACTION: it seems like the most direct solution would be to
>> change the Comsoc requirements for a "full-time registration per
>> paper" to state that this must be a named author, and to
>> allow the existing rules for exceptions (at the
>> discretion of the chairs) to address unusual cases.
>>
>> +STATUS: The Comsoc is implementing this change.
>
> Sorry, but when this did become a "consensus" opinion?
That was my interpretation of the majority of the posts. Note that it is
already Comsoc policy that there must be one full registration per paper
anyway, and that one such registration could count for up to three papers.
The original issue was that there were many papers presented by
non-authors. The appropriate correction for that concern is to require
authors to present, with exceptions at the discretion of the program
committee chairs.
> I remember one person who proposed that, and precisely that is what led us
> into the discussion about cost.
Yes, there is a separate issue about cost, which then led to discussions
about registration costs. As has been pointed out by many, registration
is only a fraction of overall attendance cost, so that issue is a
distraction as well (though one that seems to have had a lot of focus
regardless).
> The most likely reason why many papers are
> presented by non-authors is precisely cost.
That is one hypothesis. Other issues include the time and complexity of
getting necessary visas, as well as the availability of the authors (who
may need to be teaching classes, attending other meetings, etc.). We
have no data on this issue yet.
> It seems that the only change
> ComSoc likes is one that appears to lead to more research (tax payers)
> money being spent on trips. You do see that, don't you?
I have already pointed out that not all research is funded by taxpayers;
there are commercial researchers who publish at our meetings, and some
academic research is funded by commercial support.
> It does not seem appropriate for example to send 4 people from Europe or
> Asia to Hawaii to present related papers written by collegues working in
> related areas. Sending 2 or one to present all 4 papers saves a lot of
> money, obviously.
That seems to miss the point of a conference - to interact with others
by presenting one's work in a public forum.
> Clearly, if these presenters do their homework, they can
> be very well prepared for any question on their slides.
No amount of 'homework' substitutes for those actually involved in the
work being present. Yes, it is presumed that authors are involved with
the work.
> The real solution
> is to require COMPETENT presenters, capable of answering reasonable
> questions from the audience. Some authors are competent some aren't. Some
> non-authors are competent, some aren't. The chair can decide that and
> write a report on that.
We have discussed this issue on the list. The issue of good
presentations is different from whether someone familiar with the work
is present to answer questions.
>> 2- support for resource-challenged authors
>> ACTION: TCCC should identify resources for such authors
>> to be able to attend meetings in person, or to present
>> at meetings where attendance isn't possible.
>>
>> +STATUS: The TCCC is updating our web pages with this resource,
>> also including pointers for underrepresented groups. Please
>> contact Sonia Fahmy, our vice chair, with pointers.
>>
>> 3- meeting costs
>> - cost trends
>> +STATUS: to be completed (any volunteers?
>> this info is online)
>>
>> - costs associated with executive committee members
>> +STATUS: Fred Bauer has confirmed with various
>> other Comsoc officers that Comsoc meeting
>> costs, including registrations and food,
>> are charged to the Comsoc, not to the meeting.
>
> Didn't Fred Bauer also said that at least 50% of the ComSoc budget comes
> from the conferences? If so, these meetings ultimately ARE charged to the
> conferences. Because they are charged to a budget which is loaded at least
> partially with conference money.
Yes, that's correct. The BoG has an operating budget, and it comes from
things they support - which include both membership activities,
journals, and conferences. And the conferences they support help support
their expenses.
Note that this is all out of the 20% sent back to the Comsoc from an
individual conference, which also pays for things like insurance,
indemnification of meeting officers, contract support, and budget
support. Again, that's *typical* of organizations in our field.
> (below)
>
>> - costs associated with other free registrations
>> +STATUS: Fred Bauer provided example budgets
>> and their corresponding registrations. These
>> are representative of recent meetings.
>
> Didn't Fred use a hypothetical small meeting, with 100 or so
> registartions? That seems to be quite different from a 2000 registration
> meeting like ICC/ComSoc.
The expenses of smaller meetings can be much harder to balance than
larger meetings, because some fixed-cost items don't amortize well over
smaller numbers. If we can discuss Fred's budget first, larger meetings
will be easy to address using similar methods.
> And it is beyond me why should any one accept a hypothetical budget made
> with hypothetical numbers as a substitute for the real thing.
The budget wasn't hypothetical; it is "representative". Discussing an
individual budget isn't useful. E.g., some budgets give us free WiFi in
exchange for meeting room fees, others give us meeting rooms free but
expect high food costs. It's very easy to get entangled in those
details, which are not useful in directing future budget actions.
> (below)
>> - other ways to reduce costs
>
> Why not eliminate or at least reduce F2F administrative meetings. The
> money saved may be passed on to conferences. Would that work?
> What about the cost-cutting measure involving economy flying for the
> remaining F2F meetings. That may also save some money.
These suggestions would be for the Comsoc BoG, and we could make them.
However, the net effect is likely to be *very* small for individual
registrations.
Let's go back to your math:
1) 20% of a meeting's revenue goes to the Comsoc
2) 50% of the Comsoc's expenses come from Conferences
Reductions in Comsoc expenses thus don't impact conference registration
costs that much.
As to the benefits Comsoc BoG members receive, keep in mind that these
are unpaid positions. If you were elected to an office, and it was a
requirement to attend meetings with flights longer than 6 hours, would
you agree to attend if you were required to travel coach?
I'm not arguing for any of these decisions. I am noting that focusing on
these issues is not the most productive way to reduce registration costs.
> (below)
>> - university locations
>> +STATUS: The Comsoc will continue to
>> explore such locations for future meetings,
>> although recent experience has confirmed that
>> such locations do not result in lower total
>> costs.
>>
>> - LEAN meetings (bag lunches, etc.)
>> +STATUS: The Comsoc has suggested that such
>> meeting styles would reduce the quality of the
>> IEEE and Comsoc reputation. TCCC is committed to
>> encouraging the Comsoc to explore this style
>> on an experimental basis.
>>
>> - virtual/remote presentations
>> +STATUS: The Comsoc is exploring this issue.
>> Current estimates of the net effect is that it
>> may increase the registration costs for
>> in-person attendees, e.g., remote attendees have
>> lower costs at the expense of not amortizing
>> fixed costs over the entire author pool.
>
> Sorry, but that is easily fixed by charging the remote presenters the real
> cost. No one is suggesting they should be subsidised.
Some ideas on the list did suggest that.
> With all the travel
> money they save they likely can pay the true cost of their presentations
> and still save money overall.
Agreed. Note that this further requires facilities to support realtime
videoconferencing - which can require additional cost at the meeting
(more than just email bandwidths, video cameras, people to run the video
cameras), and assumes that the authors are in locations with resources
to make such presentations (both bandwidth and equipment). It is
certainly worth looking into, though.
Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
iEYEARECAAYFAksu0tUACgkQE5f5cImnZrsZJgCgwpx2HvaGEY4N94DWjWXBt64P
QiAAoMjJkt4QeDvOQX62zI16bvP1KKxI
=ok9Q
-----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