Re: Fwd: [CfP] International Lisp Conference '07 (news)

On 10 Dec 2006, at 16:36, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:

> On 12/10/06, Pascal Costanza <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> It's a conference, and it is peer-reviewed.
>
> But I hardly think of ILC as being a peer to the major peer-reviewed
> programming languages conferences.

What do you mean by this?

> By the way, I'm not at all critical of ILC.  To the contrary: I think
> it's wonderful that it exists, and it was with truly great regret that
> I turned down an invitation to give a talk at it.
>
> But I don't think much is gained by "inflating" an event like ILC, and
> I do think something is gained by "deflating" it -- letting it serve
> as a testing-ground for new ideas, giving them an opportunity to get
> an airing and feedback, before turning it (where appropriate) into a
> more significant conference publication.

I think this role is better served by the Scheme workshop series and  
the European Lisp Workshop, don't you?

> Put differently, the people who are not academics are unlikely to
> care, while those who are academics do care about these distinctions.
> Given the ease of publishing material on the Web, the importance of
> organizations like the ACM is greatly diminished.  So the DL buys you
> little -- but costs you (possibly) a lot.

I see it as a way to increase opportunities. For some people, it's  
simply not possible to get reimbursement for attending a conference  
without having a publication there, so we just make it easier for  
them to attend. If you don't wish to have a publication for a  
submission, it is certainly possible to negotiate this, or for  
example to rather submit in other categories, like a demonstration.


Pascal

-- 
Pascal Costanza, mailto:[email protected], http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium