CSEE&T 2013 Kickoff

Hi, everyone.

Well, now we know that Tony will not be our General Chairman next year.

I’d like to recommend that we go ahead and start organizing the conference. I think the first step that I would suggest is to send mail to the existing program committee, inviting them to join us in the work ahead and in San Francisco. As part of that, I’d like to ask for volunteers in the San Francisco area to help set up and run the local committee.

I think the urgent needs are:
1. Finance chair
2. Publicity chair
3. Local Arrangements Chair
4. Local Arrangements support team
5. Web wrangler or guru
6. EasyChair wrangler

While the local arrangements chair and team probably should be from the San Francisco area, I think the other positions could be performed from anywhere in the world.

We also need to firm up a CFP and a schedule.

As a draft letter, this is what I was thinking of sending:

(see the draft letter)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to CSEE&T 2013 Kickoff

  1. nothermike says:

    Timothy suggested that we trim the program committee by only reinviting people who created good reviews…

    My response was:

    It’s an interesting point. I actually agree that we need to improve the review cycle, but I’m not sure that simply trimming like this is the best way to tackle it. For one thing, I don’t want to go back through and try to figure out who “qualified.”

    I think I’d suggest a different approach. First of all, let’s tell people we want to improve the review system, and perhaps provide (a) models of good reviews (b) guidance on how to do it (c) rating of the reviews (which means someone has to read and rate the reviews). I think providing education/training about what we expect them to do in reviewing would be a great step in improving the quality of the reviews.

    I was also thinking about the point that people have discovered about rating scales. It turns out that if you give people a bunch of stuff and ask them to rate all of it on a one-to-nine scale, they often struggle, going back to adjust their ratings. But if you ask them to first look at all the listings and pick out the best and worst (top and bottom) items, then rate everything on a one-to-nine scale, they find the task much easier. They’ve got the bounds on the scale set (by the first selection of best and worst). I keep thinking there should be a way to provide a similar “weighting” for reviews — give them one really good article for comparison purposes?

    We might want to take your guide to how to write a CSEE&T paper and make a checklist of points to look for in the review? Something to consider…

    So, I’d like to go ahead and invite them to participate. Taking the step of sending in your name will actually help to remove some of the non-participants. Although perhaps I should also note that we will be expecting them to work this year, and that failure to do so will mean being dropped next year? Maybe add something like this:

    Please be aware that if you are on the Program Committee, that means you will be expected to (a) participate in some training on reviewing that we will be providing (b) perform several reviews of submissions for the conference (c) take part in discussions about the submissions and program for the conference. We will be “taking roll” and removing names of people who do not actively contribute to the conference.

    I think I’d rather open the doors for volunteers, and provide training, guidance, and feedback to improve their performance.

    Does that make sense?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s