(seL4 summit) Reviewing instructions - due May 22nd
Dear PC, It’s reviewing time! You should all have received a link to your review file (for people on the HCSS PC, this will look familiar; I found the process to work really well so we reused most of it —with the great help from Birg!). As previously said the review process should be really light weight. The aim is to put together an interesting program that we want to listen to or we think others in the community would like to listen to. You’ve all been assigned 6 of the 20 submissions —except Darren and I that will read them all. Feel free to read more (they are really short) and rate them if you want. The allocation is semi-random, and conflict-of-interest (in the reviews and in the live discussion) will be handled quite openly: declare if you have a conflict, but your opinion/knowledge is still welcome. So your job is: 1- read the abstracts you’ve been assigned (or more if you want). 2- rate them in column E (with A+, A, A-, U = Undecided, R = Reject, S = suggest a repurpose (panel, BoF..)). 3- add comments in column F; this is optional but is really useful for (a) you to remember the reasons of your rating in the discussion meeting :) and (b) if you can’t attend the discussion for any reason, we’ll know more about the reasons of your rating. 4- optionally, please tick the theme(s) you think this abstract fits in. 5- while you review, please start thinking about invited speakers, i.e. if some of these talks could be turned into invited talks, or if the topic makes you think about a good invited talk idea from someone else. We will discuss invited talks soon and it’s a good moment to start thinking about it. 6- if reading the reviews makes you think about some seL4 work that has not been submitted but would be a good addition, please let me know. If we agree, I can follow-up to see if they would be happy to participate. And please do all this before end of next week (by 22nd of May) so we have time to collate all the answers before the "PC meeting” (which you should all have received an invitation for). If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Many thanks for your work on this, it is very much appreciated :) June
Hi June, Thanks for setting this up. Given the manageable number of submissions, and the fact that they are only short abstracts, wouldn’t it be best if we assessed all other than conflicts? Gernot On 11 May 2022, at 18:29, June Andronick (seL4 Foundation) <june@sel4.systems<mailto:june@sel4.systems>> wrote: Dear PC, It’s reviewing time! You should all have received a link to your review file (for people on the HCSS PC, this will look familiar; I found the process to work really well so we reused most of it —with the great help from Birg!). As previously said the review process should be really light weight. The aim is to put together an interesting program that we want to listen to or we think others in the community would like to listen to. You’ve all been assigned 6 of the 20 submissions —except Darren and I that will read them all. Feel free to read more (they are really short) and rate them if you want. The allocation is semi-random, and conflict-of-interest (in the reviews and in the live discussion) will be handled quite openly: declare if you have a conflict, but your opinion/knowledge is still welcome. So your job is: 1- read the abstracts you’ve been assigned (or more if you want). 2- rate them in column E (with A+, A, A-, U = Undecided, R = Reject, S = suggest a repurpose (panel, BoF..)). 3- add comments in column F; this is optional but is really useful for (a) you to remember the reasons of your rating in the discussion meeting :) and (b) if you can’t attend the discussion for any reason, we’ll know more about the reasons of your rating. 4- optionally, please tick the theme(s) you think this abstract fits in. 5- while you review, please start thinking about invited speakers, i.e. if some of these talks could be turned into invited talks, or if the topic makes you think about a good invited talk idea from someone else. We will discuss invited talks soon and it’s a good moment to start thinking about it. 6- if reading the reviews makes you think about some seL4 work that has not been submitted but would be a good addition, please let me know. If we agree, I can follow-up to see if they would be happy to participate. And please do all this before end of next week (by 22nd of May) so we have time to collate all the answers before the "PC meeting” (which you should all have received an invitation for). If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. Many thanks for your work on this, it is very much appreciated :) June _______________________________________________ Summit-pc mailing list -- summit-pc@sel4.systems<mailto:summit-pc@sel4.systems> To unsubscribe send an email to summit-pc-leave@sel4.systems<mailto:summit-pc-leave@sel4.systems>
This would be fine by me, and you can all do that in the individual review file you have received (just un-filter “YES” in the “review?” column and you’ll see all papers). So yes, feel free to rate all other than conflicts, but if you happen to run out of time by May 22nd, please at least do the 6 ones assigned. I realise there’s a typo in the instructions because the columns have shifted when we added the “review?” column: rating is in column F (not E) and comments in columns G (not F), but I'm sure you would have all figured it out :) Cheers June
On 11 May 2022, at 6:34 pm, Gernot Heiser <gernot@unsw.edu.au> wrote:
Hi June,
Thanks for setting this up.
Given the manageable number of submissions, and the fact that they are only short abstracts, wouldn’t it be best if we assessed all other than conflicts?
Gernot
On 11 May 2022, at 18:29, June Andronick (seL4 Foundation) <june@sel4.systems <mailto:june@sel4.systems>> wrote:
Dear PC,
It’s reviewing time! You should all have received a link to your review file (for people on the HCSS PC, this will look familiar; I found the process to work really well so we reused most of it —with the great help from Birg!).
As previously said the review process should be really light weight. The aim is to put together an interesting program that we want to listen to or we think others in the community would like to listen to. You’ve all been assigned 6 of the 20 submissions —except Darren and I that will read them all. Feel free to read more (they are really short) and rate them if you want. The allocation is semi-random, and conflict-of-interest (in the reviews and in the live discussion) will be handled quite openly: declare if you have a conflict, but your opinion/knowledge is still welcome.
So your job is:
1- read the abstracts you’ve been assigned (or more if you want).
2- rate them in column E (with A+, A, A-, U = Undecided, R = Reject, S = suggest a repurpose (panel, BoF..)).
3- add comments in column F; this is optional but is really useful for (a) you to remember the reasons of your rating in the discussion meeting :) and (b) if you can’t attend the discussion for any reason, we’ll know more about the reasons of your rating.
4- optionally, please tick the theme(s) you think this abstract fits in.
5- while you review, please start thinking about invited speakers, i.e. if some of these talks could be turned into invited talks, or if the topic makes you think about a good invited talk idea from someone else. We will discuss invited talks soon and it’s a good moment to start thinking about it.
6- if reading the reviews makes you think about some seL4 work that has not been submitted but would be a good addition, please let me know. If we agree, I can follow-up to see if they would be happy to participate.
And please do all this before end of next week (by 22nd of May) so we have time to collate all the answers before the "PC meeting” (which you should all have received an invitation for).
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.
Many thanks for your work on this, it is very much appreciated :)
June _______________________________________________ Summit-pc mailing list -- summit-pc@sel4.systems <mailto:summit-pc@sel4.systems> To unsubscribe send an email to summit-pc-leave@sel4.systems <mailto:summit-pc-leave@sel4.systems>
Just a friendly reminder to do you reviews before the end of this week, and if you could please let Birg (CC-ed) know if you’re done early so she can start putting the info together? Thanks! June
On 11 May 2022, at 6:29 pm, June Andronick (seL4 Foundation) <june@sel4.systems> wrote:
Dear PC,
It’s reviewing time! You should all have received a link to your review file (for people on the HCSS PC, this will look familiar; I found the process to work really well so we reused most of it —with the great help from Birg!).
As previously said the review process should be really light weight. The aim is to put together an interesting program that we want to listen to or we think others in the community would like to listen to. You’ve all been assigned 6 of the 20 submissions —except Darren and I that will read them all. Feel free to read more (they are really short) and rate them if you want. The allocation is semi-random, and conflict-of-interest (in the reviews and in the live discussion) will be handled quite openly: declare if you have a conflict, but your opinion/knowledge is still welcome.
So your job is:
1- read the abstracts you’ve been assigned (or more if you want).
2- rate them in column E (with A+, A, A-, U = Undecided, R = Reject, S = suggest a repurpose (panel, BoF..)).
3- add comments in column F; this is optional but is really useful for (a) you to remember the reasons of your rating in the discussion meeting :) and (b) if you can’t attend the discussion for any reason, we’ll know more about the reasons of your rating.
4- optionally, please tick the theme(s) you think this abstract fits in.
5- while you review, please start thinking about invited speakers, i.e. if some of these talks could be turned into invited talks, or if the topic makes you think about a good invited talk idea from someone else. We will discuss invited talks soon and it’s a good moment to start thinking about it.
6- if reading the reviews makes you think about some seL4 work that has not been submitted but would be a good addition, please let me know. If we agree, I can follow-up to see if they would be happy to participate.
And please do all this before end of next week (by 22nd of May) so we have time to collate all the answers before the "PC meeting” (which you should all have received an invitation for).
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.
Many thanks for your work on this, it is very much appreciated :)
June
participants (2)
-
Gernot Heiser -
June Andronick (seL4 Foundation)