Xref: utzoo comp.object:1732 comp.lang.c++:9378 comp.lang.eiffel:1078 comp.lang.smalltalk:2207 comp.software-eng:4134 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!alice!bs From: bs@alice.UUCP (Bjarne Stroustrup) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: TOOLS '91 (March 4-8) - Call for Papers Summary: note that conference aims differ Keywords: Technology of Object-Oriented Languages and Systems Message-ID: <11282@alice.UUCP> Date: 4 Sep 90 02:30:26 GMT References: <402@eiffel.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ Lines: 27 It might be worth noting that different conferences have very different aims and are sponsored by very different organizations. Conferences sponsored by non-profit organizations such as ACM, IEEE, USENIX can usually be trusted to be run for the benefits of their members. They have acceptance criteria, fee structure, proceedings distribution, etc. that reflect that. Other organizations have aims that are not as clear cut. For example, conferences run by publishing houses, such as "Software Development" (Miller Friedman Publications) and "C++ at Work" (SIGS publications and the Wang institute of Boston University), seem to have the double goal of making a profit and make the publishing house's journals (e.g. Computer Language Magazine and The Journal of Object-Oriented Programming) more pupular to readers, authors, and advertisers alike. Other conferences, such as "DEC World," clearly exist for the benefit of their owner; the - often considerable - benefits to the participants are secondary. There are room for a lot of different kinds of conferences, but IMHO conferences should make it very clear who puts up the initial cash and who takes the profits (if any). Only then can speakers know on which basis their papers are accepted and only then can participants have a chance to know what they are letting themselves in for.