Dreamsongs Wiki

DistributedSystems

Leader: AndrewBlack (assigned)

Work Items

I just received this from James Noble:

| < I'm writing to you as chair of the Distrbuted Systems focus group on the

OOPSLA PC.

One of Dick Gabriel's changes to OOPSLA this year is that some Onward!

papers will appear in the main proceedings alongside the technical

papers. (There is also a second category of Onward! presentations that

will appear in the Companion: the due date for these presentations is

not until the start of June and they will be dealt with separately).

The Onward! committee (Dave Ungar, Ole Lehrmann Madsen, Mary

Poppendieck, Yvonne Coady, Jonathan Maletic, and Elisa Baniassad and

myself as co-chairs) have completed our reviews of the 28 submissions we

received, and based on Dick's criteria, will bring 4 papers from the

Onwards submissions to be consider for the proceedings.

Because the Onward! committee is separate (technically it is a subset of

the main committee) we need to ensure the standard of papers is common

across Onwards! papers and the rest of the papers in the proceedings.

To that end, I'm writing to ask if you (or your focus group) could

briefly look at the attached paper in the next day or so.

Onward Paper Number: 17

Title: Prototypes Considered Useful

Authors

Sebastián González, Université catholique de Louvain, Département d'Ingénierie Informatique

Tom Van Cutsem, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab

Stijn Mostinckx, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab

Wolfgang De Meuter, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab

Jessie Dedecker, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab

Reviews: AY BX CY

This paper has been reviewed by three members of the Onward! committee,

and I've attached all the reviews, so the paper should not need more

reviews: rather I'm hoping that you can audit the reviews to ensure the

paper's standard is consistent with that in your focus group - and,

perhaps, how that paper would rate against the others your focus group

is recommending.

The overall size of the proceedings is not fixed, so Onwards! papers

should not displace technical papers, but this rating may be

pragmatically useful in discussions with the rest of the committee.

Note that we are following a complementary process with papers submitted

to the technical programme that may be considered for Onward! being

cross-checked with the Onward! committee.

I'm sorry if this is a little short notice, however we needed to

complete the Onwards! reviewing process before we could forward papers

to the focus group chairs, and Dick and I needed to work out the process

for cross-checking these papers. I hope you won't feel the need to

re-review all papers, rather just audit the existing reviews before the

meeting.

END

I'm looking for a volunteer to read this paper and "audit" the reviews. Any offers? I have a copy of the paper and the reviews.

Andrew