The first round of SIGCOMM is pretty much done. (As usual, many reviews are still out, though the deadline has passed.) I had mentioned earlier that my first round papers, in general, seemed pretty terrible. My colleagues agreed. This year the ratings scale was 1-10 (which I dislike over the standard 5 point scale from previous years), and I had five papers that didn't get a score higher than a 3. (A score of 3 is "Reject"; scores of 1 and 2 are below reject. A score of 5 is still only a borderline reject, for comparison.) In some cases, I gave a 3 and was the high score. I did (eventually) read a couple of good papers that may well be accepted. Hopefully, I'll see better papers in round 2.
Matt Welsh, perhaps at least partially inspired by being on the SIGCOMM PC as well, has suggested an approach for dealing with the large quantity of awful submissions by charging authors to submit; Suresh disagrees.
Interestingly, the scores (and reviews) on my papers were generally consistent across the line, with a rare exception or two. Since there's always some overenthusiastic anonymous commenter who thinks its important to call SIGCOMM an insider's club whenever I blog about it, I'll repeat that I'm not aware of belonging to any such club, and once again, the reviews I see from others not only make sense, they match my own opinions, which I view as independent, to a striking degree.