Dear Mieke, all, W.r.t. Alberto's comment, I'd say the terms could be clearer if the words were inverted to be "Long regular papers (7-15 pages)" and "Short regular papers (4-6 pages)". In other words, "regular", here, stands in opposition to "tool" and, as such, makes sense to me. However, I would also be fine with "Long papers", "Short papers" and "Tool papers". This being said, the idea that one should not seek to fill the paper to the maximum size unless that is necessary is valid independently of the above and can be stated explicitly. More important than that — in my view, at least — is the complementary point: if the paper is (roughly) 16 pages and would loose significantly in clarity when shortened to 15, I would recommend that the PC be flexible and tolerate the overflow. This might save a sleepless night for the authors and a headache for the reviewers. I do not remember whether we have implemented that policy with Laura in 2020 but we have definitely had it in place for FormaliSE 2021 and it went perfectly fine. *We did actually announce the flexibility in the CfP and had reminded the PC at the start of the reviewing process.* Last but not least, unless I have miscounted the proposed PC has an 11/23 female-to-male ratio, which is kind of underwhelming. True, this is very close to the ratio we had in 2020 (9/18) but last year it was already 12/17, which is much better. (For the SC, we are 9/17, which is better but only slightly ;-) ) All the best, Simon On 30/10/2023 15:40, Alberto Lluch Lafuente wrote:

Dear Mieke et al., I agree with the core of the call. Good work by the PC chairs. Personally, I tend to prefer the names “Long/Short/Tool/Survey paper” (without the “regular”), but I’m fine with any of the proposed alternatives. I would also swap the order of submission types, leaving “tool papers” for last, since they have the longest description (and may be perceived as more orthogonal). Other minor doubts/suggestions: • There is not too much information about artefact submissions - only in the important dates. Maybe it should be clarified: • if they are mandatory for tool papers; • possible rules for submitting artefacts (e.g., in Zenodo or similar, source-code optional, but it should be possible to replicate results); • In case we plan to assign badges, as Emilio mentioned, these rules should be mentioned (and maybe an evaluation committee). • Maybe it is possible to improve the description of tool papers, avoiding so much content inside parenthesis. Best, José -- José Proença https://jose.proenca.org On 31 Oct 2023 at 04:38 +0000, Emilio Tuosto <emilio.tuosto(a)gssi.it>it>, wrote:

mandatory artefact submission is sometimes required tool papers. Notably, TACAS 2024 made artefact submission mandatory, but tool papers there do not necessary present a tool. For instance, a tool paper may report about experiments using tools. Therefore - "artefacts" there does not necessary mean "the tool" (eg. it could be the a dataset used by a tool). - the paper is rejected if the AEC (artefact evaluation committee) is rejected! (TACA AEC members **must** read the paper and are given very precise guidelines on what to check). Also, note that TACAS deadlines for tool paper and artefact submission deadlines differ. Finally, I'm not sure a get the point of Sung-Shik about omitting the video. The original idea of the short video was to avoid authors and reviewers to respectively write and read stuff about the tool that can be more quickly (and effectively) illustrated in a demo video. eM On 31/10/2023 17:35, Jongmans, Sung-Shik wrote: > Dear Mieke and all, > > I agree with Jose that if artifact submission (and acceptance?) is mandatory for tool papers, then this should be clearly communicated in the CfP. Also, if artifact submission is mandatory for tool papers, then the requirements that "[tool papers] must contain a link to a publicly downloadable MPEG-4 demo video of at most 10 minutes length" should probably be omitted. > > Whether or not artifact submission should be mandatory for tool papers at paper-submission-time, I don't know. I recall arguments were given both for and against this at the SC meeting last June, but I don't remember if/that consensus was reached. > > Best, Sung > >> On 31 Oct 2023, at 15:17, José Proença <jose.proenca(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear Mieke et al., >> >> I agree with the core of the call. Good work by the PC chairs. >> >> Personally, I tend to prefer the names “Long/Short/Tool/Survey paper” (without the “regular”), but I’m fine with any of the proposed alternatives. I would also swap the order of submission types, leaving “tool papers” for last, since they have the longest description (and may be perceived as more orthogonal). >> >> Other minor doubts/suggestions: >> • There is not too much information about artefact submissions - only in the important dates. Maybe it should be clarified: >> • if they are mandatory for n papers; >> • possible rules for submitting artefacts (e.g., in Zenodo or similar, source-code optional, but it should be possible to replicate results); >> • In case we plan to assign badges, as Emilio mentioned, these rules should be mentioned (and maybe an evaluation committee). >> • Maybe it is possible to improve the description of tool papers, avoiding so much content inside parenthesis. >> Best, >> José >> >> -- >> José Proença >> https://jose.proenca.org >> On 31 Oct 2023 at 04:38 +0000, Emilio Tuosto <emilio.tuosto(a)gssi.it>it>, wrote: >>> dear Mieke >>> >>> overall I think the call is fine. >>> >>> Re the terminology I prefer "Long papers", "Short papers" and "Tool >>> papers" (although obvious, I'd add 'original/unpublished/not submitted >>> elsewhere' to the description of the papers). >>> >>> Re badges: is the concern related to the discussion we had in Lisbon >>> about tools vs artefacts? >>> >>> Thanks & Bye >>> eM >>> >>> On 30/10/2023 21:23, Simon Bliudze wrote: >>>> Dear Mieke, all, >>>> >>>> W.r.t. Alberto's comment, I'd say the terms could be clearer if the >>>> words were inverted to be "Long regular papers (7-15 pages)" and "Short >>>> regular papers (4-6 pages)". In other words, "regular", here, stands in >>>> opposition to "tool" and, as such, makes sense to me. However, I would >>>> also be fine with "Long papers", "Short papers" and "Tool papers". >>>> >>>> This being said, the idea that one should not seek to fill the paper to >>>> the maximum size unless that is necessary is valid independently of the >>>> above and can be stated explicitly. >>>> >>>> More important than that — in my view, at least — is the complementary >>>> point: if the paper is (roughly) 16 pages and would loose significantly >>>> in clarity when shortened to 15, I would recommend that the PC be >>>> flexible and tolerate the overflow. This might save a sleepless night >>>> for the authors and a headache for the reviewers. I do not remember >>>> whether we have implemented that policy with Laura in 2020 but we have >>>> definitely had it in place for FormaliSE 2021 and it went perfectly >>>> fine. *We did actually announce the flexibility in the CfP and had >>>> reminded the PC at the start of the reviewing process.* >>>> >>>> Last but not least, unless I have miscounted the proposed PC has an >>>> 11/23 female-to-male ratio, which is kind of underwhelming. True, this >>>> is very close to the ratio we had in 2020 (9/18) but last year it was >>>> already 12/17, which is much better. >>>> >>>> (For the SC, we are 9/17, which is better but only slightly ;-) ) >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> Simon >>>> >>>> On 30/10/2023 15:40, Alberto Lluch Lafuente wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Mieke. >>>>> >>>>> The draft CFP looks good to me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have a comment on regular papers: the used of term “long” sounds >>>>> strange to me. Most conferences just call them “regular papers”; >>>>> calling them “long” may be confusing. Additionally, I am not sure I >>>>> understand (or recall) the rational behind the long range of pages >>>>> (7-15 ). I guess it has something to do with “don’t fill 15 pages if >>>>> what you have to say can be done succinctly in less pages”. Should >>>>> this be explained in the call? >>>>> >>>>> Something not related to this specific CfP: The steering committee has >>>>> 26 members (almost the size of the PC). >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Alberto >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 30 Oct 2023, at 15.19, Mieke Massink <mieke.massink(a)isti.cnr.it> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Steering Committee members, >>>>>> >>>>>> Below please find a letter by the PC Chairs of Coordination 2024 in >>>>> which they present their proposal for the Programme Committee as part >>>>> of a draft CfP. The draft CfP including the PC list are attached to >>>>> this email. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is one point that should be made more clear, I think, which >>>>> concerns the procedure and aim of Artifact Badging. However, in order >>>>> not to delay the submission of the draft to you all I decided to >>>>> circulate the draft as it is now and ask you for possible further >>>>> suggestions to be communicated to the PC Chairs. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be great if you could let me know your observations by >>>>> friday, November 3, at latest. As usual, I'll collect your suggestions >>>>> and pass them on to the PC Chairs in anonymised form. >>>>>> >>>>>> Many thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Mieke >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ==== Letter by Francesco and Ilaria: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Mieke, >>>>>>> we have prepared a first (partial) draft of the CfP, including >>>>> proposals for the AE chair and PC . >>>>>>> >>>>>>> More specifically, we have: >>>>>>> - left the Scope section unchanged; >>>>>>> - slightly revised/extended the list of Main Topics; >>>>>>> - indicated the invited speaker (we are happy to inform you that >>>>> Marieke Huisman accepted our invitation 😀 ); >>>>>>> - slightly revised the paper categories (in particular, we propose >>>>> to merge short and long tool papers in a single category); >>>>>>> - revised the timeline (in particular, we propose to have two >>>>> submission windows for artefacts: the idea is that artefacts >>>>> associated to tool papers play a crucial role for that kind of papers, >>>>> hence we would like to require to submit such artefacts together with >>>>> the tool paper submission; instead, artefacts associated to accepted >>>>> papers of other categories would be submitted after the camera-ready, >>>>> so as not to rush the authors to submit the artefacts while they are >>>>> finalizing the paper); >>>>>>> - agreed with LMCS the organisation of a joint COORDINATION/FORTE >>>>> special issue; >>>>>>> - indicated Saverio Giallorenzo as Publicity Chair (we propose a >>>>> new Publicity Chair since Giorgio Audrito has been promoted as member >>>>> of the PC); >>>>>>> - slightly revised/extended the list of PC members; >>>>>>> - proposed Rumyana Neykova as Artefact Evaluation Committee chair. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please let us know if you think the draft is fine for the >>>>> evaluation by the SC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Francesco & Ilaria >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Mieke Massink Ph.D. - Senior Researcher >>>>>> >>>>>> FM&&T Group (http://fmt.isti.cnr.it) >>>>>> >>>>>> C.N.R. - Area della Ricerca di Pisa - Ist. ISTI >>>>>> >>>>>> Via G. Moruzzi, 1 - I56124 Pisa, Italy >>>>>> >>>>>> Tel: +39 050 3152981 http://www1.isti.cnr.it/~Massink/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: +39 050 3152040 E-mail: Mieke.Massink(a)isti.cnr.it >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> “Half of humanity is in the danger zone, from floods, droughts, extreme >>>>>> storms and wildfires. No nation is immune. Yet we continue to feed our >>>>>> fossil fuel addiction. >>>>>> >>>>>> We have a choice. Collective action or collective suicide. It is in our >>>>>> hands.” >>>>>> >>>>>> António Guterres, UN Secretary General, July 2022, at the Petersberg >>>>>> Climate Dialogue, Berlin >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sc_coordination mailing list >>>>>> sc_coordination(a)isti.cnr.it >>>>>> https://mailman.isti.cnr.it/postorius/lists/sc_coordination.isti.cnr.it/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sc_coordination mailing list >>>>> sc_coordination(a)isti.cnr.it >>>>> https://mailman.isti.cnr.it/postorius/lists/sc_coordination.isti.cnr.it/ >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sc_coordination mailing list >>>> sc_coordination(a)isti.cnr.it >>>> https://mailman.isti.cnr.it/postorius/lists/sc_coordination.isti.cnr.it/ >>> -- >>> Sc_coordination mailing list >>> sc_coordination(a)isti.cnr.it >>> https://mailman.isti.cnr.it/postorius/lists/sc_coordination.isti.cnr.it/ >> -- >> Sc_coordination mailing list >> sc_coordination(a)isti.cnr.it >> https://mailman.isti.cnr.it/postorius/lists/sc_coordination.isti.cnr.it/ > > -- > Sc_coordination mailing list > sc_coordination(a)isti.cnr.it > https://mailman.isti.cnr.it/postorius/lists/sc_coordination.isti.cnr.it/