Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ulysses!kpv
From: kpv@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Phong Vo[drew])
Newsgroups: comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: First impressions
Summary: previously submitted papers can be reinvited
Message-ID: <11755@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 5 Jul 89 17:04:11 GMT
References: <444@warlock.UUCP> <1815@ucsd.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 28

-In article <1815@ucsd.EDU>, brian@ucsd.EDU (Brian Kantor) writes:
-The San Diego conference people remarked that they'd have liked to have
-had two paper tracks running at the conference but that they didn't get
-enough good ones to do that.  Others have remarked that the San Diego
-conference probably drained off the good papers for at least a year.
 
-From smb Wed Jul  5 11:02:08 1989
-Message-ID: <11753@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
->In article <444@warlock.UUCP>, gregb@dowjone.UUCP (Gregory S. Baber) writes:
-> I was, however, somewhat disappointed with the quality
-> of the paper presentations given on Wednesday.
-
-The Program Committee -- of which I was a member -- was disappointed in
-the quality of papers submitted.  The subject was raised at the open
-Board meeting at Usenix; no consensus on what to do about it was reached.
-Remember one thing -- we can't schedule papers that aren't submitted.
-If people want more good papers, they should start submitting them.

A reasonable approach that could have been taken for the Baltimore conference
was to re-invite some of the papers rejected in the San Diego conference
because of lack of space or because they did not meet the themes of the time.
Come to think of it, it's probably not a bad idea to keep a list of submitted
papers that were considered good quality but not meeting some criteria
specific to a particular conference. In future conferences, these papers may well
be suitable. The problem is that many authors' egos are sufficiently frayed
by a rejection not to submit them again.

	Phong Vo, att!ulysses!kpv