Dear all, [this is a very personal and probably highly controversal note - and I would like to get your comments on the topic] I receive more and more proposals for joint IEEE/IFIP organisation of conferences. Interestingly enough this initiatives come very rarely or never from the IEEE side but only from IFIP. Apparently the organisors of these (former) IFIP events expect a very positive outcome by means of the good name of IEEE, the better visibility, increased distribution,.. Very often a cheaper publishing with a better inclusion in digital libraries etc. is assumed. To my (personal) opinion this development is risky. There is a danger that the following will happen: 1. Joint organisation IFIP/IEEE with IFIP as main sponsor (but not any more as full sponsor) 2. Publication by IEEE with reduced royalties for IFIP 3. IFIP only as a co-sponsor or "in cooperation with" 4. The event disappears from the IFIP calendar. This sequence has already happened for some of our (former) events. If things continue to go like that then where is the remaining need for IFIP? I just received a ballot slip where I'm asked to vote for a dissolution of ICCC (and I don't even believe that this is a joke)!!! Some of the explanations for this proposal read as follows: "The organisation has served its original purpose admirably and with considerable consequence... Meanwhile, countless other organisations have been formed or have expanded to occupy the field first opened by our organisation. Those organisations have come to dominate in industrialised nations, including Europe and the United States. In many instances their technical, policy or business objectives are broader than our own and have expanded to cover topics traditionally addressed by ICCC. ...." To my opinion, this is nothing but a declaration of bankruptcy. The formulations might, however, just be repeated (replacing ICCC by IFIP or by IFIP TC6) if we continue to give up our major strength, namely the organisation of high-class events with full responsibility. Best regards (and please comment!) Otto
Dear Otto, I share your concern, but let me first try to have all the facts in hand. I attach the table of TC6 conferences that I prepared last December and which reflects the sponsorship of all our conferences. Some of them are co-sponsored by IEEE, such as WG 6.6 conferences, which are like that already for a considerable number of years. Besides those conferences, only IWQOS and MWCN are co-sponsored by IEEE. Which other conferences are now asking for co-sponsorship? Could you please identify if they are new conferences or some of those already mentioned in the table? Best regards Augusto -----Original Message----- From: ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE [mailto:ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE] On Behalf Of Otto Spaniol Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Outubro de 2004 13:01 To: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: [ifip-tc6] Joint IFIP/IEEE events Dear all, [this is a very personal and probably highly controversal note - and I would like to get your comments on the topic] I receive more and more proposals for joint IEEE/IFIP organisation of conferences. Interestingly enough this initiatives come very rarely or never from the IEEE side but only from IFIP. Apparently the organisors of these (former) IFIP events expect a very positive outcome by means of the good name of IEEE, the better visibility, increased distribution,.. Very often a cheaper publishing with a better inclusion in digital libraries etc. is assumed. To my (personal) opinion this development is risky. There is a danger that the following will happen: 1. Joint organisation IFIP/IEEE with IFIP as main sponsor (but not any more as full sponsor) 2. Publication by IEEE with reduced royalties for IFIP 3. IFIP only as a co-sponsor or "in cooperation with" 4. The event disappears from the IFIP calendar. This sequence has already happened for some of our (former) events. If things continue to go like that then where is the remaining need for IFIP? I just received a ballot slip where I'm asked to vote for a dissolution of ICCC (and I don't even believe that this is a joke)!!! Some of the explanations for this proposal read as follows: "The organisation has served its original purpose admirably and with considerable consequence... Meanwhile, countless other organisations have been formed or have expanded to occupy the field first opened by our organisation. Those organisations have come to dominate in industrialised nations, including Europe and the United States. In many instances their technical, policy or business objectives are broader than our own and have expanded to cover topics traditionally addressed by ICCC. ...." To my opinion, this is nothing but a declaration of bankruptcy. The formulations might, however, just be repeated (replacing ICCC by IFIP or by IFIP TC6) if we continue to give up our major strength, namely the organisation of high-class events with full responsibility. Best regards (and please comment!) Otto _______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
Dear All Perhaps I am responsible for starting this avalanche of emails re. the IEEE/IFIP sponsorship. In my 6.10 report, as you wil find out, I am requesting that the 6.10 conference ONDM become a joint IFIP/IEEE conference. You will find my reasoning and justifications in my report. If ONDM becomes a IFIP/IEEE joint conference, FIP stands to loose income from the publication of the ONDM proceedings, but on the other hand they stand to gain money from a larger group of participants. (I am not sure if this will result to a positive or negative flow at the end!!) My motivation for seeking this joint sponsorship comes from my desire to launch a truly international conference on Optical Networks. TC 6 has no criticial mass in optical networks (unlike for instance, areas such as performance evaluation, or ATM networks back a few years ago). IEEE's ONTC has a critical mass, but they do not have a conference of their own... So, this marriage is likely to generate the correct environment within which a successful international conference can be born. Unfortunately, I will not attend the meeting... Harry P. On Oct 7, 2004, at 8:56 AM, Augusto Casaca wrote:
Dear Otto,
I share your concern, but let me first try to have all the facts in hand. I attach the table of TC6 conferences that I prepared last December and which reflects the sponsorship of all our conferences. Some of them are co-sponsored by IEEE, such as WG 6.6 conferences, which are like that already for a considerable number of years. Besides those conferences, only IWQOS and MWCN are co-sponsored by IEEE.
Which other conferences are now asking for co-sponsorship? Could you please identify if they are new conferences or some of those already mentioned in the table?
Best regards
Augusto
-----Original Message----- From: ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE [mailto:ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE] On Behalf Of Otto Spaniol Sent: quinta-feira, 7 de Outubro de 2004 13:01 To: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: [ifip-tc6] Joint IFIP/IEEE events
Dear all,
[this is a very personal and probably highly controversal note - and I would like to get your comments on the topic]
I receive more and more proposals for joint IEEE/IFIP organisation of conferences. Interestingly enough this initiatives come very rarely or never from the IEEE side but only from IFIP. Apparently the organisors of these (former) IFIP events expect a very positive outcome by means of the good name of IEEE, the better visibility, increased distribution,.. Very often a cheaper publishing with a better inclusion in digital libraries etc. is assumed.
To my (personal) opinion this development is risky. There is a danger that the following will happen: 1. Joint organisation IFIP/IEEE with IFIP as main sponsor (but not any more as full sponsor) 2. Publication by IEEE with reduced royalties for IFIP 3. IFIP only as a co-sponsor or "in cooperation with" 4. The event disappears from the IFIP calendar. This sequence has already happened for some of our (former) events.
If things continue to go like that then where is the remaining need for IFIP? I just received a ballot slip where I'm asked to vote for a dissolution of ICCC (and I don't even believe that this is a joke)!!! Some of the explanations for this proposal read as follows: "The organisation has served its original purpose admirably and with considerable consequence... Meanwhile, countless other organisations have been formed or have expanded to occupy the field first opened by our organisation. Those organisations have come to dominate in industrialised nations, including Europe and the United States. In many instances their technical, policy or business objectives are broader than our own and have expanded to cover topics traditionally addressed by ICCC. ...." To my opinion, this is nothing but a declaration of bankruptcy. The formulations might, however, just be repeated (replacing ICCC by IFIP or by IFIP TC6) if we continue to give up our major strength, namely the organisation of high-class events with full responsibility.
Best regards (and please comment!) Otto
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6 <Tc6_conferences.doc>_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
Dear All, Many years ago, I already stressed the problem of joint events with IEEE. The argument in favor of joint event was - publication support at lower cost - support in the organisation of events. With Springer it has been possible to reduce the pressure on the publication problem We have also produced documents for helping the organisers of an event. TC6 interest lies in its capacity to explore new area with different formats of events and the joint sponsorship is a troyan horse. TC6 must avoid two dangers - giving its sponsorship to events organised by others organisations. - sharing the sponsorship for its events We dilute the TC6 image by having TC6 involves in a lot of events every year. In my time as TC6 chair, I had to fight to maintain the philosophy that IFIP is NOT a goverment controled organisation and that all TC6 delegates will have to be welcome at any TC6 sponsored event. Today IEEE is surrending to the will of the US goverment to isolate the researchers of some contries. Today I am worry to see TC6 co-sponsoring events where researchers of some countries of the world are not allowed to submit papers and to participate. TC6 must take a clear and strong position about the joint sponsorship with IEEE AND take the necessary steps to IMPLEMENT it. Please no more whishes. Andre At 14:01 +0200 7/10/04, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear all,
[this is a very personal and probably highly controversal note - and I would like to get your comments on the topic]
I receive more and more proposals for joint IEEE/IFIP organisation of conferences. Interestingly enough this initiatives come very rarely or never from the IEEE side but only from IFIP. Apparently the organisors of these (former) IFIP events expect a very positive outcome by means of the good name of IEEE, the better visibility, increased distribution,.. Very often a cheaper publishing with a better inclusion in digital libraries etc. is assumed.
To my (personal) opinion this development is risky. There is a danger that the following will happen: 1. Joint organisation IFIP/IEEE with IFIP as main sponsor (but not any more as full sponsor) 2. Publication by IEEE with reduced royalties for IFIP 3. IFIP only as a co-sponsor or "in cooperation with" 4. The event disappears from the IFIP calendar. This sequence has already happened for some of our (former) events.
If things continue to go like that then where is the remaining need for IFIP? I just received a ballot slip where I'm asked to vote for a dissolution of ICCC (and I don't even believe that this is a joke)!!! Some of the explanations for this proposal read as follows: "The organisation has served its original purpose admirably and with considerable consequence... Meanwhile, countless other organisations have been formed or have expanded to occupy the field first opened by our organisation. Those organisations have come to dominate in industrialised nations, including Europe and the United States. In many instances their technical, policy or business objectives are broader than our own and have expanded to cover topics traditionally addressed by ICCC. ...." To my opinion, this is nothing but a declaration of bankruptcy. The formulations might, however, just be repeated (replacing ICCC by IFIP or by IFIP TC6) if we continue to give up our major strength, namely the organisation of high-class events with full responsibility.
Best regards (and please comment!) Otto
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
-- -------------- ANDRE DANTHINE andre.danthine@ulg.ac.be + 32 4 383 75 42 25, rue Henri Fays B-4160 Anthisnes (Belgium)
At 4:50 PM +0200 10/7/04, André Danthine wrote:
Today IEEE is surrending to the will of the US goverment to isolate the researchers of some contries. Today I am worry to see TC6 co-sponsoring events where researchers of some countries of the world are not allowed to submit papers and to participate.
Andre, I agree with much of what you say in the rest of your note, but these two statements go a bit too far. The IEEE Board resolution opposing the OFAC restrictions is clear, and although you can say "well, they should just ignore the law" - and I might even agree with you on the principle - in fact, they cannot. That doesn't mean that they are "surrendering to the will of the US government." As far as your "worry" is concerned, I suppose it is fortunate that TC6 did not have an active delegate from Israel when it met in Tozeur, and that no Israeli researcher decided to submit a paper to CCDC/Africom 98 in Tunis - - Lyman
At 2:01 PM +0200 10/7/04, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear all,
[this is a very personal and probably highly controversal note - and I would like to get your comments on the topic]
I receive more and more proposals for joint IEEE/IFIP organisation of conferences. Interestingly enough this initiatives come very rarely or never from the IEEE side but only from IFIP. Apparently the organisors of these (former) IFIP events expect a very positive outcome by means of the good name of IEEE, the better visibility, increased distribution,.. Very often a cheaper publishing with a better inclusion in digital libraries etc. is assumed.
Otto, I am glad that you have raised this issue, which is important for TC6 and for IFIP as a whole. I agree with your assumption about what the organizers expect from working with IEEE. Although we have made some improvements in TC6 support for event organizers, it is still the case that IEEE provides far better support - both organizational and financial - than we provide. IEEE (and ACM) provide substantial financial backing for event organizers; IFIP does not. (As a small but current example, Ramon and I are finding that IFIP's inability to provide financial guarantees for event organizers is likely to break up the IFIP/ACM partnership for LANC.) IEEE also provides much better publication service than IFIP - as you note above, "cheaper" and "better inclusion in digital libraries." Nothing that IFIP plans to do with Springer will change this significantly. IEEE can do all of this, of course, because it has a different source of funds than IFIP. I do not mean to criticize IFIP for not doing something that it could not possibly do with its current funding model. You know that I believe that IFIP cannot survive if it continues to rely primarily on royalties from the publication of books.
To my (personal) opinion this development is risky. There is a danger that the following will happen: 1. Joint organisation IFIP/IEEE with IFIP as main sponsor (but not any more as full sponsor) 2. Publication by IEEE with reduced royalties for IFIP 3. IFIP only as a co-sponsor or "in cooperation with" 4. The event disappears from the IFIP calendar. This sequence has already happened for some of our (former) events.
I agree that this is a real danger. I think it is inevitable for many of our events, unless IFIP makes significant changes to the way in which it organizes events.
If things continue to go like that then where is the remaining need for IFIP?
I don't think IFIP is in the same position as ICCC. IFIP's strengths have always been the high quality of its conferences and workshops and the fact that it is a truly multinational and global research community. The IEEE, notwithstanding its efforts to serve an international membership, is a US-based and US-dominated organization; it is not a substitute or replacement for IFIP. (Neither, I should add, is ACM.) It is very much worth the effort to find a way for IFIP to continue to sponsor high-quality events that organizers are willing (and eager) to run under IFIP's flag, and that appeal to researchers looking for places to present and discuss their work. - Lyman
Dear Otto, I agree with all the comments of Lyman. It is clear that ICCC stayed on keeping what was the reason of its initial success. Organising big event in the best tradition of the IFIF WCC which has been admitted in high care unit for many years. Dublin was one the first catastrophy maby years ago. TC6 has continously evolved with new WG, new workshops, new conferences. We always took positions sometimes opposed to the GA, for instance in the publication problem. We have to keep things moving and the future of TC6 will not be in danger. I retress my main position. No sponsorship if we are not directly involved. No co-sponsorship with IEEE and ACM without a strong justification approved by the TC6 Regards Andre At 20:44 -0400 7/10/04, Lyman Chapin wrote:
At 2:01 PM +0200 10/7/04, Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear all,
[this is a very personal and probably highly controversal note - and I would like to get your comments on the topic]
I receive more and more proposals for joint IEEE/IFIP organisation of conferences. Interestingly enough this initiatives come very rarely or never from the IEEE side but only from IFIP. Apparently the organisors of these (former) IFIP events expect a very positive outcome by means of the good name of IEEE, the better visibility, increased distribution,.. Very often a cheaper publishing with a better inclusion in digital libraries etc. is assumed.
Otto,
I am glad that you have raised this issue, which is important for TC6 and for IFIP as a whole. I agree with your assumption about what the organizers expect from working with IEEE.
Although we have made some improvements in TC6 support for event organizers, it is still the case that IEEE provides far better support - both organizational and financial - than we provide. IEEE (and ACM) provide substantial financial backing for event organizers; IFIP does not. (As a small but current example, Ramon and I are finding that IFIP's inability to provide financial guarantees for event organizers is likely to break up the IFIP/ACM partnership for LANC.) IEEE also provides much better publication service than IFIP - as you note above, "cheaper" and "better inclusion in digital libraries." Nothing that IFIP plans to do with Springer will change this significantly.
IEEE can do all of this, of course, because it has a different source of funds than IFIP. I do not mean to criticize IFIP for not doing something that it could not possibly do with its current funding model. You know that I believe that IFIP cannot survive if it continues to rely primarily on royalties from the publication of books.
To my (personal) opinion this development is risky. There is a danger that the following will happen: 1. Joint organisation IFIP/IEEE with IFIP as main sponsor (but not any more as full sponsor) 2. Publication by IEEE with reduced royalties for IFIP 3. IFIP only as a co-sponsor or "in cooperation with" 4. The event disappears from the IFIP calendar. This sequence has already happened for some of our (former) events.
I agree that this is a real danger. I think it is inevitable for many of our events, unless IFIP makes significant changes to the way in which it organizes events.
If things continue to go like that then where is the remaining need for IFIP?
I don't think IFIP is in the same position as ICCC. IFIP's strengths have always been the high quality of its conferences and workshops and the fact that it is a truly multinational and global research community. The IEEE, notwithstanding its efforts to serve an international membership, is a US-based and US-dominated organization; it is not a substitute or replacement for IFIP. (Neither, I should add, is ACM.) It is very much worth the effort to find a way for IFIP to continue to sponsor high-quality events that organizers are willing (and eager) to run under IFIP's flag, and that appeal to researchers looking for places to present and discuss their work.
- Lyman
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
-- -------------- ANDRE DANTHINE andre.danthine@ulg.ac.be + 32 4 383 75 42 25, rue Henri Fays B-4160 Anthisnes (Belgium)
participants (5)
-
André Danthine -
Augusto Casaca -
Harry Perros -
Lyman Chapin -
Otto Spaniol