[e2e] double bland reviewing

[Arnaud Legout]

Hi,
I think there is a conflict of interest here.
On the one hand what you want is to make your work easily accessible for 
visibility and
feedback purposes. On the other hand, if you do so you biased the review 
process.

I would vote for broad visibility. I am convinced that gives you
-the best feedback
-a better acceptance (that is more than useful when you tackle a 
polemical area)
-many chances to improve your work

About the relevance to put your name on the paper or to post it 
anonymously on a
mailing list, here again a prefer to put the name on the paper as it favor
early references. There are plenty of technical reports that are 
referenced, of high quality,
and never published or published very late.

Regards,
Arnaud.


Jon Crowcroft wrote:

>so certain conferences have a tradition of double blind
>submission/review process to minimse the effect of
>"oh its by so and so so it must be {brilliant|rubbish}"
>
>some people have been known to post TRs to this (and similar lists)
>just before the submission date to achieve certain effecs
>i) familiarity amongst possible subset of reviewer pool
>ii) feedback about paper to improve it before submitting....
>
>these are not necessarily bad things, except for the 
>iii) "brand recognition effect"
>
>how about we setup a parallel list to e2e, which is closed
>member-only submission, but anonimyzed.
>
>so then people could "safely" post drafts to get community feedback
>without breaching etiquette
>
>I have here (affecting a Tom Lehrer voice/accent) a modest example I
>prepared earier of just such a possible submission - this is, of
>course, not by me, but by my evil twin at Some Other Cambridge
>University Computer Laboratory
>
>
>
>  
>