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

> > But I hardly think of ILC as being a peer to the major peer-reviewed
> > programming languages conferences.
>
> What do you mean by this?

I mean that ILC does not have the prestige, reputation or standing of
a conference like POPL or PLDI.  An academic who was expected to
publish at "top venues" to make their career could not hope to make a
career out of ILC.  This does not matter to non-academics, so it's
probably a non-issue to many ILC people, but it's not a non-issue to
at least some of the academics you hope to attract.

> > 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?

I have honestly never thought of ILC as being particularly different
from the Scheme workshops or European Lisp workshop.  If anything, I
have always thought of it as being quite a bit *less* academic than
those two.

To repeat myself: this is not a criticism.  It's just an observation
and statement of perception.  I think it's wonderful to have a less
academic venue -- we have too many stuffy, overly pompous academic
venues!  But I've never perceived ILC as academic at all, and it would
be (I think -- or at least I think I think) a pity if it were to try
to become one.

> > 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.

This response does not address my issue.  Indeed, if someone needs a
publication to pay for their trip, then they are now in a bind because
they cannot then send that same work to a more academic conference.
So arguably your policy creates *less* flexibility, rather than
providing more opportunity.

Workshops like FOOL (Foundations of Object-Oriented Languages) have
long had a policy of not publishing formal proceedings precisely so
people could still (a) have a paper and talk to show to their bosses
for travel funding and (b) get feedback from the very high-quality,
but quite narrow, FOOL audience, while still having the option of
re-sending their work (perhaps somewhat improved) to a broader venue.

Shriram