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:
- Joint organisation IFIP/IEEE with IFIP as main sponsor (but not any more as full sponsor)
- Publication by IEEE with reduced royalties for IFIP
- IFIP only as a co-sponsor or "in cooperation with"
- 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