Re: [Tccc] summary of current conference concerns v4

Hi Joe:

I cannot tell from your note if we are roughly agreeing or disagreeing.

So let me try upleveling and see if we agree or disagree.

* I think we agree that COMSOC and the TC needs to sunset conferences and that
long-established meetings sometimes don't get enough scrutiny.

* I think we disagree about what kind of scrutiny is appropriate.
I, based on my IEEE and ACM experience, find that the simply tracking
if the conference sticks to its usual review process and character
and assuming that if interest is lost then finances fall short is
a slow and not always effective way to sunset conferences.

(I can name a number of IEEE conferences and some ACM conferences that
everyone I knew felt lingered too long).

* I think we agree that whatever metrics we use for scrutiny should
be rigorous and measure a relevant feature. We have some disagreement
about whether citations or other impact ratings should be part of
the process. Note that I'm NOT arguing this should be the sole
measure -- there are reasons for meetings that don't get reflected in
citations/impact numbers. But I'd like us to start requesting some
consistent across conferences and independent (and/or hard to fudge)
metrics beyond simply finances and attendence and, if we are requiring
them in IEEE (we're not in ACM), I'd like to encourage your panel to
examine if we're using the right metrics.

Thanks!

Craig
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc