Dear all,
today I have distributed the minutes of meeting 2005/1 in Toronto (they have been prepared by Jan Slavik). Something strange must have happened: Whereas some of you have already confirmed and have even indicated some necessary modifications others haven't apparently received the attachments. Could you please indicates whether you got - my email message - the minutes as attachment - the new IFIP publication policy as attachment?
Best regards Otto
Dear Otto,
I didn't receive any attachment !!
BR,
Neuman.
Otto Spaniol escreveu:
Dear all,
today I have distributed the minutes of meeting 2005/1 in Toronto (they have been prepared by Jan Slavik). Something strange must have happened: Whereas some of you have already confirmed and have even indicated some necessary modifications others haven't apparently received the attachments. Could you please indicates whether you got
- my email message
- the minutes as attachment
- the new IFIP publication policy as attachment?
Best regards Otto
ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
I did not receive any attachment either.
Professor S V Raghavan Email: svr@cs.iitm.ernet.in
Currently Visiting University at Buffalo Department of Computer Science Phone: 716-645-3180 x 163 Email remains the same.
Permanent Address: Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai 600036 INDIA Tel: +91 44 2257 4359/4350 (Messages) Fax:+91 44 2257 0563 Email: svr@cs.iitm.ernet.in -----Original Message----- From: ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE [mailto:ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE] On Behalf Of Otto Spaniol Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 8:00 PM To: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: [ifip-tc6] Minutes received?
Dear all,
today I have distributed the minutes of meeting 2005/1 in Toronto (they have been prepared by Jan Slavik). Something strange must have happened: Whereas some of you have already confirmed and have even indicated some necessary modifications others haven't apparently received the attachments. Could you please indicates whether you got - my email message - the minutes as attachment - the new IFIP publication policy as attachment?
Best regards Otto
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
Dear Otto et al.,
In the minutes you sent us, there is a miss regarding to the proposal I made about considering all the events organized by WG 6.9 (under its main aim) as Working Conferences in order to reduce the sponsorship fee for IFIP.
I made this proposal during the report of WG 6.9.
Everybody agreed with the proposal and Guy Leduc added that there is no fee in the case of Working Conferences. I could not confirm this last aspect but in any case I understand that the proposal was unanimously accepted.
I hope it can appear in the new version of the minutes.
<>Best Regards
Ana
Dear Ana,
At 13:49 +0200 7/06/05, Ana Pont Sanjuan wrote:
Dear Otto et al.,
In the minutes you sent us, there is a miss regarding to the proposal I made about considering all the events organized by WG 6.9 (under its main aim) as Working Conferences in order to reduce the sponsorship fee for IFIP.
I made this proposal during the report of WG 6.9.
Everybody agreed with the proposal and Guy Leduc added that there is no fee in the case of Working Conferences. I could not confirm this last aspect but in any case I understand that the proposal was unanimously accepted.
I said that there is no fee for workshops. This is different. There is a reduced (or possibly no) IFIP fee for working conferences when IFIP is a co-sponsor.
In fact the ERF form specifies the IFIP fee for open and working conferences when IFIP is the full or the main sponsor only! All other cases are undefined and thus negotiable.
This said, I still support a reduction of the IFIP fee for events organized in developing countries.
Best regards, Guy
I hope it can appear in the new version of the minutes.
<>Best Regards
Ana
ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
Dear Ana,
In the minutes you sent us, there is a miss regarding to the proposal I made about considering all the events organized by WG 6.9 (under its main aim) as Working Conferences in order to reduce the sponsorship fee for IFIP.
The structure of the event is not determined beforehand by the name of the working group but by the content and by the size of the event.
Typically the smallest is a WORKSHOP (up to 50 participants; by personal invitation, not always a publication, no sponsorship fee at all).
Secondly we have a WORKING CONFERENCE (up to 150 participants; reviewed manuscripts, sponsorship fee to IFIP 5 EURO per full paying participant per day).
And then we have a CONFERENCE or even a SYMPOSIUM (10 EURO per participant per day as sponsorship fee to IFIP).
In the case of WG 6.9 we can always discuss about the structure, even about the requested sponsorship fee. To divert all the events beforehand as being a workshop or a working conference would not be the best idea (to my opinion). There might be events in developing countries which could have 500 participants, this could happen e.g. in India. To name such an event a workshop would not be correct.
I made this proposal during the report of WG 6.9.
Everybody agreed with the proposal and Guy Leduc added that there is no fee in the case of Working Conferences.
This must be a misinterpretation (see above). For a working conference a sponsorship fee is requested.
I propose that we discuss the WG 6.9 events on a case by case basis with a tendency of naming them workshops or working conferences (or with a special agreement for reduced sponsorship fee).
Best regards Otto
Dr Omidyar was proposing an International Conference in India in 2006. I do not see this reflected in the minutes - or do I miss something? I have put him in touch with "people who matter" in Bangalore.
Professor S V Raghavan Email: svr@cs.iitm.ernet.in
Currently Visiting University at Buffalo Department of Computer Science Phone: 716-645-3180 x 163 Email remains the same.
Permanent Address: Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennai 600036 INDIA Tel: +91 44 2257 4359/4350 (Messages) Fax:+91 44 2257 0563 Email: svr@cs.iitm.ernet.in -----Original Message----- From: ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE [mailto:ifip-tc6-bounces@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE] On Behalf Of Otto Spaniol Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:26 PM To: Ana Pont Sanjuan; ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Subject: Re: [ifip-tc6] Minutes received?
Dear Ana,
In the minutes you sent us, there is a miss regarding to the proposal I made about considering all the events organized by WG 6.9 (under its main aim) as Working Conferences in order to reduce the sponsorship fee for IFIP.
The structure of the event is not determined beforehand by the name of the working group but by the content and by the size of the event.
Typically the smallest is a WORKSHOP (up to 50 participants; by personal invitation, not always a publication, no sponsorship fee at all).
Secondly we have a WORKING CONFERENCE (up to 150 participants; reviewed manuscripts, sponsorship fee to IFIP 5 EURO per full paying participant per day).
And then we have a CONFERENCE or even a SYMPOSIUM (10 EURO per participant per day as sponsorship fee to IFIP).
In the case of WG 6.9 we can always discuss about the structure, even about the requested sponsorship fee. To divert all the events beforehand as being a workshop or a working conference would not be the best idea (to my opinion). There might be events in developing countries which could have 500 participants, this could happen e.g. in India. To name such an event a workshop would not be correct.
I made this proposal during the report of WG 6.9.
Everybody agreed with the proposal and Guy Leduc added that there is no fee in the case of Working Conferences.
This must be a misinterpretation (see above). For a working conference a sponsorship fee is requested.
I propose that we discuss the WG 6.9 events on a case by case basis with a tendency of naming them workshops or working conferences (or with a special agreement for reduced sponsorship fee).
Best regards Otto
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
Dear all,
I used the miss term in my last e-mail. You can read again using WORKSHOP instead WORKING Conference. Sorry for the inconvenience. I´m still trying to understand the very complicate IFIP working mechanism.
As far as the response of Otto Spaniol:
Otto Spaniol escribió:
Dear Ana,
In the minutes you sent us, there is a miss regarding to the proposal I made about considering all the events organized by WG 6.9 (under its main aim) as Working Conferences in order to reduce the sponsorship fee for IFIP.
The structure of the event is not determined beforehand by the name of the working group but by the content and by the size of the event.
Typically the smallest is a WORKSHOP (up to 50 participants; by personal invitation, not always a publication, no sponsorship fee at all).
Secondly we have a WORKING CONFERENCE (up to 150 participants; reviewed manuscripts, sponsorship fee to IFIP 5 EURO per full paying participant per day).
And then we have a CONFERENCE or even a SYMPOSIUM (10 EURO per participant per day as sponsorship fee to IFIP).
I would like to thank you for helping to clarify the ideas. Also thanks to Guy for the same reason.
In the case of WG 6.9 we can always discuss about the structure, even about the requested sponsorship fee. To divert all the events beforehand as being a workshop or a working conference would not be the best idea (to my opinion). There might be events in developing countries which could have 500 participants, this could happen e.g. in India. To name such an event a workshop would not be correct.
You are right about the different situations, but it was not discuss during the meeting.
I made this proposal during the report of WG 6.9.
Everybody agreed with the proposal and Guy Leduc added that there is no fee in the case of Working Conferences.
This must be a misinterpretation (see above). For a working conference a sponsorship fee is requested.
I propose that we discuss the WG 6.9 events on a case by case basis with a tendency of naming them workshops or working conferences (or with a special agreement for reduced sponsorship fee).
This is a new proposal completly different to mine. It is a pity that the minutes is not very precise!
Br
Ana
Best regards Otto
ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
Dear Ana,
I used the miss term in my last e-mail. You can read again using WORKSHOP instead WORKING Conference. Sorry for the inconvenience. I´m still trying to understand the very complicate IFIP working mechanism.
We didn't have time enough at the meeting for these possible alternatives. Anyway, ir doesn't make sense to nam every WG 6.9 event a workshop since a workshop is purely on invitation basis.
My proposal is to establish first a WG 6.9. intitiative and thereafter to classify the event and to discuss asponsorship fee question (if it arises).
Best regards Otto
Dear otto, I agree that is convenient to discuss the fees policy of WG6.9 as well as the cooperation of WG6.9 in any activity to be done in some developing country. However, I disagree that a workshop is always just by invitation. There a lot of workshops with an open call for papers, even inside IFIP and more preciseley inside the TC6. Best regards Ramon
Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear Ana,
I used the miss term in my last e-mail. You can read again using WORKSHOP instead WORKING Conference. Sorry for the inconvenience. I´m still trying to understand the very complicate IFIP working mechanism.
We didn't have time enough at the meeting for these possible alternatives. Anyway, ir doesn't make sense to nam every WG 6.9 event a workshop since a workshop is purely on invitation basis.
My proposal is to establish first a WG 6.9. intitiative and thereafter to classify the event and to discuss asponsorship fee question (if it arises).
Best regards Otto
ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
Dear Ramon and all others,
I agree that is convenient to discuss the fees policy of WG6.9 as well as the cooperation of WG6.9 in any activity to be done in some developing country. However, I disagree that a workshop is always just by invitation. There a lot of workshops with an open call for papers, even inside IFIP and more preciseley inside the TC6.
You are right. The IFIP rules say (cf. Event Approval Guidelines http://www.ifip.or.at/events/eag.htm): Workshop (WS): general category for events within a special subject area, organized by a WG for professional/scientific purpose, a restricted and rather small attendance (less than 50), and with unrefereed contributions, normally not intended for publication.
I had the Dagstuhl organisation in mind (where everything is based on personal invitations). Nevertheless it will be not possivle to treat every event in developing countries as a workshop by means of the mere purpose to get rid of the sponsorship fee request.
A WG 6.9 event could even be a seminar (without any sponsorship fee requirement). This is defined as: Seminar (SE): general category for events characterized by special scope, usually organized by a TC or a WG for educational purpose, a restricted and moderate attendance, and with invited contributions, normally not intended for publication.
Best regards Otto
Dear Otto,
Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear Ramon and all others,
I agree that is convenient to discuss the fees policy of WG6.9 as well as the cooperation of WG6.9 in any activity to be done in some developing country. However, I disagree that a workshop is always just by invitation. There a lot of workshops with an open call for papers, even inside IFIP and more preciseley inside the TC6.
You are right. The IFIP rules say (cf. Event Approval Guidelines http://www.ifip.or.at/events/eag.htm): Workshop (WS): general category for events within a special subject area, organized by a WG for professional/scientific purpose, a restricted and rather small attendance (less than 50), and with unrefereed contributions, normally not intended for publication.
I had the Dagstuhl organisation in mind (where everything is based on personal invitations). Nevertheless it will be not possivle to treat every event in developing countries as a workshop by means of the mere purpose to get rid of the sponsorship fee request.
I agree with you. However, I think, and I have always said, that while all the WGs (excepts 6.9) are gerators of funds, WG6.9 should be considered as expender of funds. A discussion on how to treat the events organised by WG6.9 should be planned in one of the coming meetings (the next one, if possible).
A WG 6.9 event could even be a seminar (without any sponsorship fee requirement). This is defined as: Seminar (SE): general category for events characterized by special scope, usually organized by a TC or a WG for educational purpose, a restricted and moderate attendance, and with invited contributions, normally not intended for publication.
This is the case, for example, of the tutorialists we send to CLEI in many occassions. Best regards Ramon
Best regards Otto
Dear all,
In order to avoid any kind of conflict I agree with the suggestion of discussing again the fees policy of WG6.9 -as well as the cooperation of WG6.9 in any activity to be done in some developing country- in the next meeting.
However, at this point I would like to say that I´m not especially happy with the way the things have happened.
All of us make a big effort to attend the meetings so we must be more precise in our conclusions and agreements and if we need more time to study the problem, just take it but don’t change our decisions.
Take it easy and relax. Life is too short to argue!
Best regards
anA
Ramon Puigjaner escribió:
Dear Otto,
Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear Ramon and all others,
I agree that is convenient to discuss the fees policy of WG6.9 as well as the cooperation of WG6.9 in any activity to be done in some developing country. However, I disagree that a workshop is always just by invitation. There a lot of workshops with an open call for papers, even inside IFIP and more preciseley inside the TC6.
You are right. The IFIP rules say (cf. Event Approval Guidelines http://www.ifip.or.at/events/eag.htm): Workshop (WS): general category for events within a special subject area, organized by a WG for professional/scientific purpose, a restricted and rather small attendance (less than 50), and with unrefereed contributions, normally not intended for publication.
I had the Dagstuhl organisation in mind (where everything is based on personal invitations). Nevertheless it will be not possivle to treat every event in developing countries as a workshop by means of the mere purpose to get rid of the sponsorship fee request.
I agree with you. However, I think, and I have always said, that while all the WGs (excepts 6.9) are gerators of funds, WG6.9 should be considered as expender of funds. A discussion on how to treat the events organised by WG6.9 should be planned in one of the coming meetings (the next one, if possible).
A WG 6.9 event could even be a seminar (without any sponsorship fee requirement). This is defined as: Seminar (SE): general category for events characterized by special scope, usually organized by a TC or a WG for educational purpose, a restricted and moderate attendance, and with invited contributions, normally not intended for publication.
This is the case, for example, of the tutorialists we send to CLEI in many occassions. Best regards Ramon
Best regards Otto
Dear otto, I also remember the fact reported by Ana. So, I give my support to her amendment. Best regards Ramon
Ana Pont Sanjuan wrote:
Dear Otto et al.,
In the minutes you sent us, there is a miss regarding to the proposal I made about considering all the events organized by WG 6.9 (under its main aim) as Working Conferences in order to reduce the sponsorship fee for IFIP.
I made this proposal during the report of WG 6.9.
Everybody agreed with the proposal and Guy Leduc added that there is no fee in the case of Working Conferences. I could not confirm this last aspect but in any case I understand that the proposal was unanimously accepted.
I hope it can appear in the new version of the minutes.
<>Best Regards
Ana
ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
I received both Minutes and Policy. Guy _______________________________________________ Guy.Pujolle@lip6.fr - LIP6-CNRS - Université Paris 6 Assistante: Laetitia.Jacquey@lip6.fr, Tel: +33 1 44 27 87 74 - Fax: +33 1 44 27 87 83
----- Original Message ----- From: Otto Spaniol To: ifip-tc6@informatik.rwth-aachen.de Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 4:29 PM Subject: [ifip-tc6] Minutes received?
Dear all,
today I have distributed the minutes of meeting 2005/1 in Toronto (they have been prepared by Jan Slavik). Something strange must have happened: Whereas some of you have already confirmed and have even indicated some necessary modifications others haven't apparently received the attachments. Could you please indicates whether you got - my email message - the minutes as attachment - the new IFIP publication policy as attachment?
Best regards Otto
_______________________________________________ ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
Dear Otto, I confirm that I have received your message with all the attachments in good shape. However in the minutes is omitted that I asked all the WG to request the cooperation of WG6.9 when they were doing some activity in developing countries. Best regards Ramon
Otto Spaniol wrote:
Dear all,
today I have distributed the minutes of meeting 2005/1 in Toronto (they have been prepared by Jan Slavik). Something strange must have happened: Whereas some of you have already confirmed and have even indicated some necessary modifications others haven't apparently received the attachments. Could you please indicates whether you got
- my email message
- the minutes as attachment
- the new IFIP publication policy as attachment?
Best regards Otto
ifip-tc6 mailing list ifip-tc6@lists.RWTH-Aachen.DE http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/ifip-tc6
-
Ana Pont Sanjuan -
Guy Leduc -
Guy Pujolle -
José Neuman de Souza -
Otto Spaniol -
Ramon Puigjaner -
S V Raghavan