Talk:Hierarchical Program Committees
From Health of Conferences Committee
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 20:16, 28 February 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 03:08, 3 March 2006 MarkDHill (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| == Starting Comments == | == Starting Comments == | ||
| - | As some conference get more papers, they add more members to the program committee. At some point this ''scaling'' does work and other option should be considered. | + | As some conference get more papers, they add more members to the program committee. At some point this ''scaling'' does work and other options should be considered. |
Revision as of 03:08, 3 March 2006
To add your comment to this discussion, please click the + sign tab above. Like an email message, you can then contribute:
- a subject (use subject Re: FOO to continue a discussion of FOO)
- message body
- (optionally) your name.
Starting Comments
As some conference get more papers, they add more members to the program committee. At some point this scaling does work and other options should be considered.
SIGKDD
- We did increase program committee size. But management and evaluation of so many papers and 1000+ reviews was difficult because it is harder to ensure that the papers are appropriately assigned and more difficult to ensure quality and consistancy of all reviews with a larger program committee.
- We recommended that this years Program Chairs use a more hierarchical programs stucture so that there can be better oversight of the reviewing and discussion processes.
SIGART
- Increased the size of the PC. Used a 2 layer approach, with Senior Program Committee (SPC) members supervising the work of PC members and coordinating the discussion among the reviewers of each paper to attempt to reach consensus.
SIGIR
- I think the distinguishing feature of the IR community is the extremely broad base of volunteers that it draws upon. Junior people get into the system quickly, via reviewing. If they're any good, they get tapped to do other things, e.g., organize workshops, chair the review process for workshops or tutorials or posters, manage the SIGIR web site, etc. This gets them into the system and gives them visibility, which eventually helps them move on to positions of higher responsibility. When we run elections, we are able to offer 3 strong candidates for each of the 4 elected positions. We then appoint several additional representatives to the EC to cover regions that didn't win any seats via the election. The net effect is that we have reasonably good turnover in positions of responsibility (Executive Committee, Area Coordinators, Program Chairs, General Chairs) without a real dip in quality. We don't have strict rules about turnover, but it's part of the culture of the community that there be some, to make room for others.
