Following on the previous
post of Jean-Charles.
One of our reader suggested
to have a look at the the workshop on organising worshops and conference in CS: http://static.usenix.org/events/wowcs08/tech/
So I had a look and found a very
interesting presentation and article "Best
Practices for the Care and Feeding of a Program Committee, and Other Thoughts
on Conference Organization" (Fred Douglis, IBM).
On PC composition he says in
his presentation:
Avoid inbreeding, or the
appearance of it
- Overlap from year to year
- Institutional overlap
Here is the extract on this
topic from his article:
A number of conferences have a tendency
to become rather inbred: they have a certain number of effectively permanent PC
members, and only rotate a small fraction of their PC members from year to
year. This is a bad idea. I believe that the core USENIX conferences, such as
the annual conference and OSDI/NSDI1 are pretty good in this regard, as are
some other conferences like SOSP. Some other systems conferences retain a much
higher fraction of PC members, which I think results in a bit of tunnel vision,
focusing on the same topics each year with much the same perceptions of what
are good ideas and what are not.
Another possible aspect of inbreeding is the number of
PC members from a particular organization or with a particular background. One
USENIX security conference included a few people from one organization, and
then the chair joined the same organization as the CFP came out, making it seem
like he had selected 1/3 of the PC from his own organization. This looked bad
to some, and while no one faults the chair for changing organizations, there
would not have been an issue of the other people didn’t overlap so much. I can
think of two other USENIX conferences that included over half the PC members
with ties to the same department as the chair. I’m sure these PCs contained
very talented people and I am not accusing them of bias; I am only suggesting
that conferences need to avoid the appearance of being cliquish.
I think that conference organizers (such as USENIX)
should establish guidelines for the number of PC members that can overlap in
these respects, and then do a sanity check on PC lists prior to publishing the
CFP. Some overlap with previous years is important, but too much overlap is
terrible; finding that sweet spot would be a good topic for discussion at
WOWCS. (I would recommend 20-30%.) Some conferences such as USENIX ATC have an
informal policy of ensuring that a program chair serves on the PC the years
before and after they chair it, which offers very strong continuity and should
be adopted by all conferences.
One way to bring in new blood is to look at authors
who have not previously served on the PC. When I chaired ATC’98, I took a
USENIX bibliography to identify all authors of ATC or OSDI papers in the
previous few years, then count their papers. I found a couple of people in my
own department at AT&T who had published pretty much every year but never
been on the PC ... and sure enough they both turned me down, despite my pleas
for the need for authors to play their part as reviewers.
A corollary to my point about identifying people who
have published but not served is that I think it is, in general, a tragedy to
appoint someone to a PC who has never published at a conference, if the
conference has been around for at least a couple of iterations. Are there
people who could serve on a PC for conference X based on their experience at
conferences Y and Z? Sure. But if they haven’t published at X, they either
haven’t been submitting there (meaning they may not be that interested in the
conference and also that they may not be well calibrated to the material
normally published there) or they’ve been having submissions rejected. There
are generally enough published authors from previous conferences that these
authors should be tapped.
I just wanted to check if one
of my favourite conferences, CPAIOR has a risk of inbreeding according to the
indicators we should look at from the paper of Fred Douglis.
Over the past 7 conference
2007->2013:
18% of the PC has been the
same for the past 8 years (counting on average 40 PC members)
2008: 54% of the PC common with
2007
2009: 57%% of the PC common with
2008
2010: 79% of the PC common with
2009
2011: 46% of the PC common with
2010
2012: 50% of the PC common with
2011
2013: 32% of the PC common with 2012 (with 22% of persons
coming from the same institution!, I've already posted a message on this)
Another stat:
50% of the union of PC's of CPAIOR have been in at least 4/7 last PC.
42% in at least 5/7
32% in at least 6/7
I’m afraid Fred Douglis would
say CPAIOR has a risk of inbreeding …