Recordinf is live

The group is small and so we can ask folks to raise their hands and I can unmute them in turn. Thoughts?

totally

Right, yes, of course.

Thank YOU to all the volunteers on CARES. Handling these sorts of incidents is not easy, and can be demoralizing no matter the outcome—-please know your efforts are appreciated!

YES!

Thank you Alex!

Thanks, Alex, that means a lot to me.

IMHO, I think SIGCOMM suggesting/requiring reviewers to at least give license to share reviewers is parallel in many ways with open access.

Asking reviewers to disclaim copyright seems like it’s the right thing to do, even if it does discourage a few people from volunteering to be on PCs

I think people doing ML to de-anonymize won’t obey copyright anyway?

In my own reviews, I state in the reviews that I am happy to have my identity revealed to authors. That forces me to write and contemplate in a certain way. So, while not public, there is some accountability. Does that work here?

hotcrp could have a checkbox that says "don't share this review with others"?

(The big concern I’d have is, “what if I make a mistake?” )

@George: good point. The question is whether we should *require* reviewers to relinquish copyright.

Thanks for sharing these important issues with us so honestly. A couple questions more related to conferences than to review process: (1) are there any new issues arising with virtual conferences versus in-person conferences? (2) what is the right division of responsibility between SIG level and ACM level?

IANAL but seems like there is daylight between “relinquish copyright” and granting a license for dissemination.

@Alex: True, good point.

I want to second others who are thanking CARES for doing this important work for the community. I wanted to suggest that the discussion of copyright specifically may be a red herring in this context -- I'm not sure it has quite the importance that is being placed on it in this conversation.

I agree with Keith. Let’s shift away from the copyright discussion.

Thanks, Keith, and I agree

Does CARES have a role in “in cooperation” events such as NSDI, and if so, do ACM policies apply in those cases?

Jeff’s question is good. I don’t know. Does anyone know?

What can we learn from the ISCA’19 incident (and to a lesser extent, the recent HotNets incident) where the author side needs to repeatedly raise concerns to different organizations, after an “unsatisfactory” response with no clear way to appeal? I think it might be good to have a clear path of escalation and appeal rules for incidents

A decision to start publishing reviews would be a big one and an interesting one. But absent that, copyright on reviews is like copyright on emails -- it's owned by the authors and normally a private matter between the author and the forwarder. It's not the ACM's business to enforce other people's copyrights.

@keith agreed. I need to sign off, but would caution CARES/the SIG from “biting off more than it can chew”. I.e., we should try to manage expectations about what the SIG can enforce/assist with. Obviously we want to support the community, but messaging where/how one can seek help is more than half the battle IMO,

For activities that are carried out under ACM auspices, my understanding is that ACM believes it is appropriate for them to have policies in place that specify a baseline. For the issue of reviews, as Ellen pointed out, we could opt out and put in place our own policy by asking reviewers to sign a release form

FYI, Danny is one of my PhD students.

The SIG has long had a detailed process for ensuring representation on SIGCOMM PCs … maybe not perfect, but it seems to be working better than nothing. Can the SIG adopt something similar for CARES membership?

Folks, I need to drop out myself. A BIG thank you to CARES; far from easy, and yet highly valued.

Thanks, Marwan

Maybe a rolling process: two people added each year, two rolling off, 3 year terms. Steady state 6 people.

+1 Carey

Another thanks to CARES for opening up the discussion!

advocate@acm.org