Research and Development Working Group Teleconference

27 Jun 2012

See also: IRC log


Shadi, Justin, Klaus, Vivienne, Christos, Peter, Simon, Markel, Shawn
Joshue, Yehya, Yeliz


Mobile Topic De-Brief (5m)

SH: PT, do you want to talk about the mobile symposium?

PT: maybe we have to talk about what to do next.

SH: the actual format went better than last time. These two hours went quicker than in the previous one. The chairs should meet soon. In general the symposium went all and I'd like to thank all: Shadi, Yeliz, Peter and attendees.

VC: having read the papers the current format was more interesting; overall went better than the last one.

I agree with Vivienne

SAZ: it went really well, we had good discussions, speakers were very knowledgeable and had more to share than the papers themselves. Kudos to chairs also, it went really well. I received transcript but it's not in a very good HTML.
... it does not validate so far...we will put it online soon. The fact that we had two channels (one for control, another for the discussion) was somewhat confusing. For the future, also, we should investigate how to put captioning and the chat in the same window.
... considering our time limitations for submission, reviews etc...we need to refine the mechanics although overall it was a big improvement over the last one.

PT: I agree with that one. Just two comments: (1) noise on IRC was confusion, (2) I was to ask more questions but time constraints did not allow to do that.

<peter> q1: questions in IRC log?

SH: you're right regarding the noise...it'd be good if we put the questions on IRC as there may be some participants that did not access through the phone.

PT: would it be a good idea to have chairs doing different things?

SH: it's good to have questions ready

SLH: kudos for chairs and organisers
... SAZ mentioned that we need to check the rebuttal time. I have some ideas about the next symposium if you want to discuss them.

SH: let's address these changes in the real context of the next symposium

VC: I have some comments about the captioning..which was useful to distinguish accents and helps to follow the talk more easily

SAZ: I'm happy for the chairs to take up IRC management but they should learn the commands
... if we had had more time...that would have help

<shadi> +1

SH: the current systems requires some expertise...one chair could manage IRC with the help of somebody who is expert (e.g. SAZ); I learned and I can help for the next time

SAZ: I support this

SH: as more training occurs it will be easier

'Text Customization' Progress (5m)

SH: let's have some update from SLH

SLH: there is no significant move since last time...couple of things: (1) what we learned from the last symposium: rebuttals and so on and the length of papers and (2) how we are going to work with the easy to read symposium

SH: ...how we want to run the two topics...two calls and one submission place or closely together but still separate with some linkage regarding infraestructure

<Zakim> shadi, you wanted to talk about paper length and review effort and to talk about proximity of two topics

SH: I don't think we'll gonna have any problem with symposium...we already decided we are having two symposium...just I want to discuss the mechanics

SAZ: longer papers entail more effort to review...there were some papers with weird HTML..I don't know how other conferences approach to the length issue...

<peter> Shadi: do you need help with menial tasks like converting papers, transcripts, * to HTML and or other tasks?

SAZ: regarding the proximity...the type of papers we get..it can depend on the papers we get in the first call and decide afterwards...we can shift them back and forth

<peter> shadi: nope that's a fine tool - happy to help you if you ever feel overwhelmed

SH: regarding 1000, one should be able to do it for a extended abstract. When the SC suggests changes there is no much room to removing/adding stuff. 1000 words is okay as long as it is tighted...

<JB> great idea

<peter> +1 form idea

SH: we could be more constrained about the abstract like providing forms that would match sections. Regarding time-frame we removed 2 weeks from the established schedule
... but this does not have necessarily happen again
... for the next one we have SLH and Wayne Dick?

SLH: really like the idea of 1000 word limit
... now the SC is listed
... there is a couple of possibilities for chairs, some who are in the scientific committee that would agree to chair..also if you have any suggestion for the SC that'd be great

<JB> +1

<peter> 1+ what simon just said

<christos> +1

<Klaus> +1

<sharper> +1

<vivienne> +1

<peter> give it a try and see what happens

shall I do it?

SH: let's put that on the Wiki on the symposium mechanics section

SAZ: we have wiki pages which are public, some other for the group and some other are in between
... we can discuss the visibility of pages in a future agenda

RESOLUTION: word limit for submissions will be around 1000 words and if the SC suggests changes it can be extended to address such changes.

ok, was waiting for your confirmation :-)

KM: I'm open to any organisation format. From my experience, the broader the call is the higher number of submissions you get...but text customisation deserves a separate call. The sooner we decide the easier it'll be to adjust to organisational protocols.

SH: we can run them separately but staggering them with one month separation. Also we can have the same call and still run them separately...

KM: I support SH's idea...and would be happy to have an overlap between the SC and chairs

SH: my 2nd suggestion: we run it separately, but deadline is the same, reviews are done by same people and symposiums are run one month apart


<peter> so if I understood we'd work on both symposiums in the background at the same time but run the symposiums separately?

<Klaus> +1

<JB> +1

good idea

<christos> +1

<vivienne> +1

<peter> +1 (though tending to be complicated)

<shadi> [[for the record, this sound really promising but i would like to think more about it too]]

RESOLUTION: there will be 2 separate calls for the forthcoming 2 symposiums, the same submission system will be used, same deadline and reviewers will be coordinated coordinated; symposiums will run separately where text customisation will be first and after one month easy to read.

<JB> +1

<sharper> +1


<peter> +1

<vivienne> +1

<Klaus> +1

<christos> +1

SH: any other business?

MV: which is the status of the 1st report?

<Klaus> have to leave, sorry!

SAZ: is still awaiting, SLH is redesigning which will benefit the
... there were some issues on the review...some minor stuff
... I have an action to contact the editors in the following days

OK thanks for the update

SLH: it's looking very good, I'll send for before the next meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.136 (CVS log)
$Date: 2012/07/04 12:12:17 $