In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > We are pleased to announce something new at the Sigcomm Conference > > this year: In addition to posting every paper online, we are > > publishing a public review for every paper (written and signed by a > > Program Committee member), along with an online discussion > > forum. It's free, it's public and it's now available at: > > > > There seems to be a direction toward PC transparency elsewhere so > > maybe its not crazy to suggest increased transparency in the NANOG PC. > > This is different from what we have been discussing. > > In their case, program committee members have relevant > expertise in the subject area. Their PC members only > review papers that are in their specific area of > expertise and decline to review papers outside of > that. Once a paper is reviewed by experts and > accepted, possibly subject to changes in a shepherding > process, the final paper is then publicly reviewed. > > Given that NANOG presentations do not require a paper > to be submitted, this would be hard to retrofit into > NANOG. Certainly, the PC would not be competent to review > a presenter unless they have relevant expertise and are > present during the session at the NANOG meeting. > > The NANOG PC does not appear to have the same rigor > with regard to the expertise of members. If you go > to one meeting in the last year, then you are > qualified to be a PC member. Each member must review > ALL presentations submitted. Etc. > > Logistically, it seems to be wiser to move towards > asking all presenters to provide a paper or slideset > that stands alone. Then, once that is in place, move > towards some kind of organized critical review of all > accepted presentations. > > --Michael Dillon
You and others who have responded misunderstood what I was getting at. All I was saying is maybe more transparency is good. Others are going for more transparency. In a past email I emphasized how very different some conferences are from NANOG by their nature and gave SIGCOMM as the classic example. SIGCOMM is once a year, requires formal papers, has a lengthy formal iterative review processs, NANOG has a cursury review and very quick acceptance decision. SIGCOMM's very long process makes it possible to have some public review along with the internal experts review. I thought it would be clear given that prior mail that I couldn't possibly be suggesting that NANOG emulate SIGCOMM. This is more a response to Don Welch's comment "academic conferences ... every case we took great pains to preserve the privacy of the feedback." So ... more transparency is good. That was my only point. As a follow up, can we increase transparency without compromising the privacy of PC feedback? That seemed to be the direction Martin was headed in and my question about the ratings has been a red herring. Curtis
