[e2e] double bland reviewing

[Jonathan M. Smith]

I still think the reviewing process would benefit from the suggestion I
made at SIGCOMM in the OO session......! :-)
								-JMS


On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Self Similarity in the Arrival Process of
> Network Systems Architectures considered Harmful
>
> ....for possible FDNA paper...continuing a long tradition of
> spurious research destinated for the journal of irreproduceable
> results (formally known as ACM CCR),
>
> the past has always been the best predictor of the future (at least
> until last tuesday fortnight when i was knocked off a bike for the
> first time in 47 years of riding around in various taxi-ridden
> cities).
>
> SO for FDNA, it is clear that we need to trawl the Past Directions
> in Network Architectures - as was discussed recently, we need to
> think about complexity -
>
> how has network architecture complexity varied over the years - lets
> draw a graph, as that will help us get the paper up to 8 pages
>
> complexity
> ^
> |
> |   2     4       6       8 ?
> |  ..     . .     . .     ?
> | .  . 3 .   . 5 .   . 7 .
> |.    . .     . .     . .
>  _______________________>time
>
> Notice that the y axis complexity measured as the exponent, on a log
> scale, so the peaks of the curve are np complete, the mid points are
> quadratic, and the troughs are linear complexity - the x axis for
> time is measured roughly in decades....and is of course a
> cabbalistic plot
>
> so the points i've annotated are an excercise for the reader
> but let me give some Three Letter Acronyms for you to play with
> ATM
> GSM
> HBN(hilltop beacon network)
> MCT (morse code telegraph)
> ASN (Ad-hoc sensor networks)
> IP4
> X25
> POTs
>
> and we can see that it is a pretty clear match...
>
> so what is 8? well this is somethign ew should avoid - this argues
> that there is No Future in FDNA for 10 years - we should skip
> immediately ahead 20 years where at least we can get back to
> networks that are quadratic (or adriatic) in complexity, or even 30
> years where they will be O(C), for some constant C
>
> A colleague pointed out we need to worry about C - some examples are ATM
> where C is basically the entire output of the world economy for a
> decade in terms of trees and paper for the ATM B-ISDN specifications
> - this is linear complexity in architecture, but of course of no
> practical value at all....
>
> next?
>
> jon
>