Dear Paul, DEFINITIVE REPLY Sorry for the confusion arising from the Atlantic time difference. Jean has already indicated to you he is happy to go with the 13th - so we'll go with that. Unfortunately I didn't see the email where Jean made the decision - hence my rapid action this morning with the deadline looming. He's obviously more generous that me! Jean is obviously aware of your progress so hopefully we can have a productive meeting tomorrow. Shaun

Can I just point out that we gave you notification of acceptance on or about 23rd January, at least a week ahead of the "official notification" you received direct from the organisers. The paper rejection rate for the conference was I think something like 60-70%. In many workshops and the main track this can only have been achieved by pretty harsh rejection criteria. We have tried to be a little more generous in order to keep the workshop alive, less than 8 papers and it would have been killed, but this does mean we have to spend a little longer checking the revised papers than we should have done. The organisers were always going to have been struggling with the original 7th receive and 10th accept deadline. Since we didn't know about the extension to the 19th until we'd sent out our acceptance then we decided to keep the 7th as it was with the view that this would give us time to clear up problems with any of the authors who were struggling to get the corrections done!

We do not want to be unreasonable. I've already checked with Uwe and, provided Chris or Jean don't object, perhaps you could make a considered review of the referee's comments for the Kreaseck paper and report back to us by Weds 8th 14:00 GMT, via Jean if you need to talk, with progress to date and an assurance that you are able to address all issues. We are having a review meeting for the revised papers later that afternoon. If you would then send the fully revised version on to us by Monday 13th then we can get back to you with any hopefully minor (e.g. formatting) issues on the 14th/15th.

I hope this answers the questions you raised and gives you the time to make the changes requested.

Regards

Shaun

##################################################################### Dr Shaun Forth Applied Mathematics & Operational Research Engineering Systems Department Cranfield University, Shrivenham Campus Swindon SN6 8LA, England tel.: +44 (0)1793 785311 fax.: +44 (0)1793 784196 email: S.A.Forth@cranfield.ac.uk http://www.amorg.co.uk http://www.rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk/amor #####################################################################

...

-----Original Message----- From: Paul Hovland [mailto:hovland@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:15 PM To: Uwe Naumann; Christian Bischof; Jean Utke; Forth Dr Shaun Cc: Paul Hovland Subject: Date(s) for final version

Dear AD2006 organizers,

Today we received reminders from Uwe that our revised papers are due tomorrow, Feb 7, and from the ICCS organizers that they are due Feb 19. The original conditional acceptance letter we received from Jean indicated that the deadline of Feb 7 was due to a Feb 10 final deadline imposed by the ICCS organizers. Since the ICCS organizers appear to have pushed this final date back to the 19th, will the AD2006 deadline be pushed back to Feb 16 (or, since 19 is a Sunday, perhaps Feb 15)? I'm not too worried about the Linearity paper with Michelle (although given all of my other commitments, a few extra days there wouldn't hurt either), but I'm a little worried about the Dynamic Analysis paper with Barbara Kreaseck, especially since Michelle and I haven't been able to devote much time to it. We will comply with the Feb 7 deadline if necessary, but 12 days for y'all to evaluate the revised version does seem a tad excessive.

Thanks for any clarification you can provide...

Paul

-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the Cranfield MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.