>Double-blind paper preparation and reviewing is not "for free," and we
>are already asking for significant effort to manage the yearly UAI
>conference.
As someone who has served as program and general chair, let me tell
you, managing UAI is a *major* effort. AUAI doesn't charge dues and
our conference fees are quite modest -- which means that we run to a
large degree on volunteer effort and donated time and money from our
corporate sponsors. When I was chair, I investigated what it would
cost to have the conference professionally managed. We would have
had to about double registration fees, assuming (obviously
incorrectly) that registration wouldn't decline as a result of
doubling the fees. Having done the program chair job before
Microsoft's conference management system was up and running (THANK
YOU, Microsoft!!!), and having participated in more than one major
overhaul of organizational processes for organizations that didn't
have formal processes or know how to overhaul organizational
processes, let me *strongly* second Bob's assessment of the cost and
effort involved in any major change to our processes.
>Unless someone can propose an enormous payoff to double-blind
>reviewing (and with all due respect to the previous posters, I haven't
>heard one yet), I prefer that we forego the nuisance.
Let me put it another way.
1. How much are the people who support double-blind reviewing
willing to pay for it, either in the form of dues to join AUAI or in
the cost of registering for the conference?
2. Can the people who support double-blind reviewing propose
processes and mechanisms that would not be unduly burdensome, and
show us how the processes and mechanisms they propose could be
smoothly integrated into how AUAI currently does business?
Kathy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 19 2001 - 07:14:35 PST