Unfortunately, by that metric, we'd be left with one conference (SIGCOMM) and no workshops co-sponsored by ComSoc. That might be a reasonable outcome, but may not be universally popular.
Again, it might be helpful to remember in this discussion that we're not looking to crown the top conference(s) or evaluate conferences for tenure cases. Rationalizing the approval process seems like a small, but helpful, step. I sympathize with the notion that there are probably too many conferences and workshops, but if that's so, concrete suggestions would be helpful, as somebody is obviously still submitting papers to those events. (I think the proliferation of events is rational, if not ideal: The effort of producing conferences has decreased due to process automation and remote hotel booking; increasing trans-oceanic air fares encourage regional events; there are more active regions beyond North America and northern Europe, etc.) For example, does ComSoc/TCCC co-sponsor too many events? Which ones shouldn't it co-sponsor and why? Henning On Jun 2, 2013, at 3:09 PM, Giuseppe Bianchi wrote: > Human factor: that's why I find appealing a metric consisting in the number > of attendants over the number of papers. > > Having 400 persons traveling to a 40-papers conference without any > presentation to deliver is the result of years of human-judgement practice > which at least suggests that papers presented there are useful. Then, you can > find crappy papers everywhere, simply the probability is deemed to be lower > that in a 300 paper conference attended by 300 authors and nobody else. > > Giuseppe. > _______________________________________________ IEEE Communications Society Tech. Committee on Computer Communications (TCCC) - for discussions on computer networking and communication. [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/tccc
