Laurie King (LK) (Co-Chair)
Karl R. Wurst (KW) (Co-Chair)
Stephen Block (SB)
Elena Braynova (EB)
Lawrence D'Antonio (LD)
Joe DeStefano (JD)
Lonnie Fairchild (LF)
Frank Ford (FF)
David Hemmendinger (DH)
Andy Hwang
Adrian Ionescu (AI)
Amruth Kumar (AK)
Aparna Mahadev (AM)
Hemant Pendharkar (HP)
Viera Proulx (VP)
Stanzi (Constance) Royden (SR)
Ingrid Russell (IR)
Jim Teresco (JT)
Richard Wyatt (RW)
There were 23 accepted out of 50 submitted.
There were 55 reviewers.
There were 205 reviews.
There were 3 "deadbeats".
7 papers had 3 reviews,
31 papers had 4 reviews,
11 papers had 5 reviews, and
1 paper had 6 reviews.
There were 5 candidates for best paper.
A provisional schedule was submitted. One of the submissions, here identified only as B4, generated much discussion. As the submission seemed to be only a commercial product, it was asked whether it should be permitted in the conference. After much discussion, the submission was rejected as a tutorial, and it was agreed that the author/presenter would be asked if they wanted to do it as a vendor presentation.
There was a general discussion on plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, as regards papers. It was agreed that Larry would bring the matter up before National.
It was observed and noted that the copyright forms need to be updated.
It was observed and noted that biographies and abstracts for the workshops and tutorials are needed.
There are to be two workshops: AI and Robotics, and a repeat of the Security w/s from last year. They are limited to 16 persons.
The issue of whether we should conduct w/s surveys, in addition to the overall conference survey, was raised. It was agreed that Larry will supply us with the SIGCSE w/s evaluation form.
Paper guidelines are to be the same as last year.
The choice of speakers is not yet finalized. Guy Steele still an option, and Lynn Stein was also suggested.
There were 49 submitted (and therefore 49 accepted).
It was noted that some were poorly submitted.
The question of whether we need to have better submission instructions was raised.
It was agreed that there should be clear instructions and that they should actually be enforced as part of the student learning experience of how to submit to a professional conference.
It was agreed that Aparna will contact the "bad" poster submissions and point out that they need to be improved as regards some or all of: English, spelling, required information. It was also agreed that Aparna will write an email form letter to this effect.
It was noted that there is space for 50 posters.
There was discussion of the numbers of available tables and easels. It was agreed that students would be asked which of the two they prefer.
It was agreed that all material -- poster information, abstracts, bios, etc -- is to be in to the publicity chair by January 16.
Information is needed on room assignments, registration, etc, and it was agreed that Laurie would get it and send it to Frank.
It was agreed that the final deadline for publicity information is February 13, which is the same date as that for the camera-ready copies of papers.
It was agreed that we should discourage submissions in PDF format.
It was agreed that we should get copies of the 06 program and a one-page flyer on the 06 conference to the upcoming SIGCSE. It was also agreed that there should be an announcement made for the 07 conference at the upcoming SIGCSE.
Information and forms are to go to Frank, who will enter the information into the national database.
The copyright notice is to go to Mike, not Frank.
Stanzi will do the local registration: labels, on-site registration, badges, meal tickets. She will also run off the programs.
It was noted as an aside that the official to-do lists on our web site are out of date. There was no discussion as to who would update them, or when.
It was observed that we need about 250 folders for the information to be handed out at the conference, and that they should contain a campus map showing parking, the relevant buildings, and the locations of bathrooms.
There will be only a UNIX platform having only C++ and Java.
The judging software has been installed, but the public scoreboard has not yet been tested at this time.
There is a limit of 23 (repeat 23) teams.
An on-site tech person is needed during the actual contest.
No students are to have access to the printers.
Areas need to be set aside for the students to gather in.
At most only 2 members of any team may be in the judging room at any given time.
Food for both breakfast and lunch is to be provided for the contestants and the advisors.
It is desirable that there should be a projector so that the scoreboard can be displayed overhead.
Team numbers are to be assigned randomly so that the judging is anonymous.
The food choices are: fish, chicken, or vegetarian.
The best paper judges are: Larry D'Antonio, Richard Wyatt, and Hemant Pendhartar. No one was appointed chair.
Karl informed the meeting that he was in the process of doing a vendor page for our web site.
There is an address for the vendors to ship their goods to, which is available from Laurie.
The deadline for the vendors if they wants to be mentioned in the program is April 3.
It was agreed that the vendors chair is to contact the national vendors to ask if they are coming to CCSCNE, and to encourage them to sponsor a break or programming context, and to see if they might donate some physical "goodies".
The person whom the vendors chair should contact is Ernie Ferguson.
--------------------------------------------------------Conference committee members requesting reimbursement from National are to send their expenses to Amruth. He reported that he will email everyone to this effect, and that he requires that the expenses be submitted to him within 15 days of the conference.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Wyatt
(CCSCNE Secretary)