{"id":10877,"date":"2015-02-20T07:00:23","date_gmt":"2015-02-20T07:00:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/?p=10877"},"modified":"2015-02-20T07:00:23","modified_gmt":"2015-02-20T07:00:23","slug":"qip-2015-business-meeting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/2015\/02\/20\/qip-2015-business-meeting\/","title":{"rendered":"QIP 2015 business meeting"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

A QIP 2015 epilogue: our notes from the business meeting. See also this post<\/a> by Kaushik Seshadreesan.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Business Meeting Report<\/h3>\n

local organizing committee report<\/h4>\n

Finance:
\n$193,545 – $191,467 = $2,478 profit!
\nregistration income: $185,340
\nrefunds, about $3,000
\nexternal sponsorships: $30,450, and another $5k due later
\ntotal income before tax: $212,900
\nafter tax: $193,545
\nExpenses:
\ntutorial: $5,296
\nmain program: $47,941
\nbanquet: $120*270 = $32,400
\nadmin: $10k
\ntravel support for about 41 junior researchers: $34k+
\ninvited speakers: $45k estimated
\nrump session: $10,600 estimated
\nbest student paper prize: $700
\nother\/misc: $5k
\ntotal: $191,467
\nRegistration:
\ntotal: 276
\nin 2014: 261 (early before 31 oct, 169; standard by 30 nov, 68; late by 31 dec, 29)
\nin 2015: 15 (on-site 10)
\nno-show: 10
\nIt’s great that the budget was balanced to about 1%. However, what to do about the little bit of extra money? This is a perpetual problem. Runyao had a nice simple idea: just send it to next year’s QIP and use it for travel support for junior researchers.<\/p>\n

Program Committee Report:<\/h4>\n

197 talk-or-poster submissions (1 withdrawn) (In Barcelona, there were 222 but this decrease probably reflects the distance to Sydney rather than anything about the field.)
\n3 PC members for each submission, and 25 submissions per PC member.
\n3 weeks of refereeing, 2 weeks of discussion.
\nMuch faster than a typical theoretical CS conference
\n39 accepts, including 2 mergers 20% accept
\nSC invited 3 more speakers 40 talks in the program
\n6 of these recommended to SC for plenary status
\none best student paper
\nThere were 601 reviews, at least 3 per submission
\nThere were 142 external reviewers and 220 external reviews.
\nIn the first round there were 102 posters accepted. 5 poster-only submissions, all rejected talk-or-poster submissions
\n92 more posters 90 accepted… one out of scope and one wrong.
\nAbout 40 people withdrew their posters or simply didn’t put up a poster.
\nWe could have accepted about 20-30 more good papers. Future choice: accept more papers? This implies parallel sessions (if we decide to accept all of those good-enough-for-QIP papers). There are pros and cons of this. Pro: more people will be happy, and better representation of research. The Con is that the community will be more split, the conference needs two medium-size lecture rooms (but what about the plenary talks?).
\nAnecdotal feedback from authors: some reviews were sloppy. On the other hand, with only 3 weeks of refereeing we cannot expect too much. CS reviewers are more detailed and more critical.
\nDo we want the 3-page abstract format? There was not much discussion on this point, but Ronald de Wolf said that the costs outweigh the benefits in his opinion. We don’t have strong opinions. Steve likes them but thinks maybe two pages would be enough. Aram thinks we could do without them, or could go to 4 pages so the physicists could use their PRL and the computer scientists could use the first 4 pages of their long version. Apparently no one in the audience had strong opinions on this either, since there was no discussion of this point. Hopefully the next PC chair at least thinks carefully about this instead of going with the default.
\nDo we want to have the abstracts on the website? Again, there was no discussion of this point, but RdW thinks this is generally a good idea (and us Pontiffs agree with him).
\nShould we make the reviews public (subject to caveats)? E.g., something like what was done for TQC 2014, where lightly edited reviews were posted on SciRate. The answer is obviously yes. \ud83d\ude42 We made a case for partial<\/b> open reviewing, and the slides are here<\/a>. The “partial” here is important. I think a lot of people have misinterpreted our proposal and counter-proposed a compromise in which only edited summaries of reviews of reports are posted for accepted papers; this is funny because it is essentially what we did for TQC 2014! It is true that in implementing this the details are extremely important, including instructions to the PC & subreviewers and the explanations of the system to authors and the public (e.g. crucially including the fact that published reviews are not meant to explain acceptance\/rejection or even to label as “good” or “bad” but rather to add perspective). Probably these points should be in a longer post.
\nQIP 2016 will be held in Banff, with Barry Sanders chairing the local organizing committee.
\nBids for QIP 2017 are being put in by Z\u00fcrich and Seattle with local organizing committee chairs of Rotem Arnon Friedman and Krysta Svore respectively. (I mention chairs because my understanding is that no matter how large the committee is, they do a $latex \\Omega(1)$ fraction, or even a $latex 1-o(1)$ fraction, of the total work.) A straw poll of attendees shows slight favor for Z\u00fcrich. Krysta said that MSR would probably still be interested in hosting in 2018, when the geographic case for Seattle would be stronger. Neither place will be as glorious as Sydney in January, but Seattle winters are pretty mild (although gray).
\nStephanie Wehner presented the results of a poll that showed support for parallel sessions (about 50% of respondents favored this over options like dropping plenary talks, dropping the free afternoon, shorter talks or doing nothing). Others, like Daniel Gottesman, complained that the poll seemed to be asking how<\/i> to increase the number of talks, rather than whether<\/i> we should. A show of hands at this point (from an audience that by now had become pretty small, perhaps in part because there was free beer at the rump session at this point) showed an audience roughly evenly divided between supporting and opposing an increase in the number of talks. The Trinity of Pontiffs are divided on the parallel question, but of course it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. We might try an experiment doing parallel talks on one day (or even half-day) out of five, so we can see how we like it.\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A QIP 2015 epilogue: our notes from the business meeting. See also this post by Kaushik Seshadreesan. Business Meeting Report local organizing committee report Finance: $193,545 – $191,467 = $2,478 profit! registration income: $185,340 refunds, about $3,000 external sponsorships: $30,450, and another $5k due later total income before tax: $212,900 after tax: $193,545 Expenses: tutorial: … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “QIP 2015 business meeting”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[22,40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conferences","category-liveblogging"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}