Again, speaking as an individual.
On 8/12/2010 12:33 PM, Mark Allman wrote:
> Well, quick math says that if the bottom 50% don't show up then you at
> least get to double this 10%, right?
Overall, FWIW, this is key to the point I was trying to make.
My broader reason for raising this is:
We can't continue, IMO, to claim that "networking" or even CS as a whole
is different from other fields enough that our meetings always have <10%
accept rates. We can't continue to claim that "Sigcomm is really like a
journal".
Ultimately, we play in broader enterprises - tenure evaluations,
performance reviews, etc. - that span disciplines. We've been beating
our head against the 'system' that assumes how many journal vs.
conference vs. workshop pubs are reasonable across a broad board.
Yes, ultimately, we're all headed for some evolution of this model,
e.g., based on electronic publishing, etc. But that's not what's driving
the current dissonance. IMO, it's time to consider whether life would be
better if we just accepted a more conventional idea of what a conference is.
Joe
_______________________________________________
Tccc mailing list
Tccc@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment