Tony, Dimitri, I think that the principle of selecting the presentations is necessary and having a "committee" to decide is better than simply letting the chairs decide on their own.
However, I'm surprised that you do not consider discussion on the mailing list and submissions of drafts/technical reports. > >> "only high quality proposals with substantive novelty will take >> group-wide time." >> >> -> novelty against ? the existing global Internet, the existing >> scientific literature, the existing rrg proposals, etc. ? > > > Against the existing proposals. Assessing this novelty could be done by discussing publically the submitted presentations on the mailing list before the meeting. > >> "The identity of the endorsing member will be made public." >> >> -> is the review itself also going to be made public/sent on the list ? > > > The review is essentially a yes/no answer and we'll only be disclosing > the yeses. I don't think that a binary review is the proper way to select presentations. In all scientific conferences, the selection on the papers that will be presented is done based on the *text* comments written by the reviewers. The feedback from the reviewers is more important than the presentation slot. If you want to have good proposals submitted to RRG for presentations, may I consider the following : - select a short committee whose job will be to review the proposals and select those that will be presented given the available time - choose a deadline for the submission of proposals, e.g. two months before the meeting - As I think that it is important for the community to be aware of the proposals, they should be sent as internet-drafts or publically available technical reports and announced on the mailing list - during two or three weeks, the members of the committee write reviews for the proposals. The community could also discuss the proposals through the mailing list - the committee reads all reviews and selects the best ones for presentations. The reviews are sent on the mailing list - the authors of the presentations should submit a revised version of their proposal based on the feedback received on the mailing list and from the reviewers Olivier -- http://inl.info.ucl.ac.be , Universite catholique de Louvain, Belgium -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
