tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post8558590722002062402..comments2024-03-10T05:26:42.148-04:00Comments on My Biased Coin: STOC PC Meeting : Part IV: (Conflicts of Interest II)Michael Mitzenmacherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06738274256402616703noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-77924965101520392242009-02-12T21:16:00.000-05:002009-02-12T21:16:00.000-05:00Shai --One can argue whether "same institution" sh...Shai --<BR/><BR/>One can argue whether "same institution" should be a conflict of interest. I think it's a quite reasonable default, but I do understand there are other points of view. <BR/><BR/>One additional reason for it is the issue of "leakage" of information after the PC that I've brought up. That is, even if you wish to make the argument that same-institution conflicts don't potentially yield significant unfair or inappropriate decisions, there's also the matter of whether it's appropriate for people at the same institution to have complete access to discussions of a paper from the same institution, given that people will talk. Your previous comments suggest you feel this isn't a big deal, but I think many others might disagree.Michael Mitzenmacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161032642563814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-56505853388766827452009-02-12T21:07:00.000-05:002009-02-12T21:07:00.000-05:00Anon #48: Thank you for you comment; you raise a ...Anon #48: Thank you for you comment; you raise a number of points that, should the community continue to discuss this issue, should surely be considered. <BR/><BR/>Two quick points. First, adding default rules (and remember, my proposal what that the default is you should leave the room -- unless there's a very good to exceptional reason not to) is not meant to prevent disclosure of other possible biases. I agree that, for example, it makes sense under any set of rules for someone to say, "I wrote a previous paper on this topic, and XXX", both to provide context, and to let people know if you may have any bias.<BR/><BR/>Also, while the rules don't handle all types of negative bias (or, of course, all positive ones), the same institution rule could stop some negative bias cases, for example! (Same with recent co-authors! Or students/advisers!)Michael Mitzenmacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161032642563814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-39182311980075134782009-02-12T20:58:00.000-05:002009-02-12T20:58:00.000-05:00Anon 47: You write: "...seems unfair to research...Anon 47: <BR/><BR/>You write: <BR/>"...seems unfair to researchers from large institutions."<BR/><BR/>It shouldn't be. As I've stated (but has seemed to have been ignored) multiple times before, I understand the issue of coverage; a paper should get reviewed by a minimum number of qualified reviewers, or (in my mind) the conflict rule would have to be waived as an exceptional case. It would just mean that when the paper has authors from a large institution, you have to find reviewers not from that institution. That's not impossible. And, I argue, that challenge of finding reviewers is better than the committee trying to determine on-the-fly if there are any current department politics affecting the review of the paper (positively or negatively) -- or even just determining if there's the standard unconscious bias that we tend to favor our colleagues.Michael Mitzenmacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161032642563814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-52913124452270475382009-02-12T20:43:00.000-05:002009-02-12T20:43:00.000-05:00"unfair to researchers from large institutions. "S..."unfair to researchers from large institutions. "<BR/><BR/>Sounds like a white man <BR/>complains that he is<BR/>discrimated against because of race.<BR/><BR/>Come on, do we already have too many papers from those institutions?<BR/>Is it time to get some alternative<BR/>view? <BR/><BR/>Michael you did a good job!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-19037031214174242192009-02-12T17:52:00.000-05:002009-02-12T17:52:00.000-05:00Anon 49: As Chair, I indeed appointed someone to ...Anon 49: <BR/><BR/>As Chair, I indeed appointed someone to run the meeting while I stepped out for conflicts related to other submissions from Harvard or for advisers and students. That is, I held myself to the same rules I held others.<BR/><BR/>I admit the issue of "funding sources" I had not considered a conflict, as it had not occurred to me before; it certainly merits further discussion.Michael Mitzenmacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161032642563814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-70390023345792044292009-02-12T17:48:00.000-05:002009-02-12T17:48:00.000-05:00Is it necessary for the PC chair to appoint a sub ...Is it necessary for the PC chair to appoint a sub to "chair", to allow the PC chair to step out during discussion of submissions from: <BR/><BR/>The same institution (Harvard)?<BR/><BR/>Or of previous students, advisor, collaborators? <BR/><BR/>Or from research labs and organizations that granted the PC chair research funds (or can potentially do this)? <BR/><BR/>Clearly, the last argument applies not only to the PC chair, but I don't think such COI is usually "disclosed" to the rest of the PC to be aware of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-54431375741063973602009-02-12T17:07:00.000-05:002009-02-12T17:07:00.000-05:00My main concern about these new COI policy is that...My main concern about these new COI policy is that it creates the impression of eliminating most COIs, both to people already in the community and to incoming students. <BR/><BR/>First, when people believe COI is already eliminated (even if only to large extent), they might be less careful when getting somebody's input, and other situation (e.g. disclosing a conflict when writing a review). <BR/><BR/>In fact, many of the COIs occur for a different reason, which is likely to be unknown to the PC, and thus honest disclosure of them seems a better policy than strict rules. For example, suppose a borderline submission builds heavily on your own work in a recent STOC paper. Clearly you are the expert, but of course you are likely to gain from this citation (think e.g. about the talk basically describing your own work). <BR/><BR/>Second, I often felt that its much easier for a PC member to "kill" a submission they dislike, then to "promote" one they do like. A large number of the accepted papers actually lie close to the borderline, and its just easier to emphasize their downside (or perhaps it is only human that negative feelings are stronger). If I understand correctly, the new COI policy is aimed at eliminating positive bias, but is useless against negative bias. <BR/><BR/>Indeed, in my experience, (1) the hardest yet decisions are regarding the borderline cases, which tend to be a large fraction of the accepted papers, and (2) these papers are borderline exactly because there is some aspect in which they are not so great.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I am not convinced the situation regarding COI is any better in other CS communities (with double blind submissions etc.), despite the better impression received by a superficial inspection (e.g. by students submitting a paper for the first time). Furthermore, in most papers in such areas, the main contribution is "conceptual" (sorry for using this controversial word, I cannot find a better term off hand) in the sense that almost any reviewer on the PC can understand and evaluate the paper. Thus the expertise argument mentioned in previous comments may apply to TCS more than in some other communities. <BR/><BR/>One really last comment: Although I disagree with some of the arguments and actions), I admire Michael for openly discussing his PC work, which invites criticism. But this is probably the price a blogger must pay to gain the controversy required to have a highly read blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-29587864847209229142009-02-12T16:53:00.000-05:002009-02-12T16:53:00.000-05:00"Being at the same institution = COI" seems unfair..."Being at the same institution = COI" seems unfair to researchers from large institutions. Your paper misses more expertise in the discussions than someone from a smaller institution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-8280086304495351352009-02-12T15:56:00.000-05:002009-02-12T15:56:00.000-05:0011011110:I am not sure what in my post made you th...11011110:<BR/>I am not sure what in my post made you think that I am fighting to commit COI ???<BR/><BR/>All I said was that I don't agree with the COI policies DEFINED HERE,<BR/>and believe they will lead to loss of expertise/information which may result ultimately in less knowledge/fairness than existed before.<BR/><BR/>Also, the implication you seem to make is that one is fighting to join stoc/focs pc's in order to twist the outcome --<BR/>a kind of outrageous proposition.<BR/>Being on a committee is a lot of work with the dubious return to the PC members of having people suspect you were responsible for rejecting their paper, or at least did not appreciate it enough to accept it. From that point of view, Michael certainly has made the life of his PC very easy. No one we know can suspect us of any influence ! The question remains however not whats right for us but whats right for the program.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07026411066780631488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-67205023032215876872009-02-12T15:04:00.000-05:002009-02-12T15:04:00.000-05:0011011110, what bewilders me is that you think that...11011110, what bewilders me is that you think that working in the same institution as the authors is a real conflict of interests. Even more so that you seem to believe that this rule is somehow relevant to "the rights of the submitters."<BR/><BR/>A point that I was trying to convey in this entire argument (unsuccessfully, I think), is that relying on common sense and informal "standard procedures" typically works better than setting rules that must always be obeyed. The latter should only be invoked if there is a serious failure of some sort<BR/><BR/>Lest we forget, the only reason that society cares to pay our salaries is that we somehow advance science. In my world, this goal is best served when the flow of information is as free as we can make it. Hence my strong bias against setting strict rules that limit information flow, unless there is a proven need.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-61774153383899832212009-02-12T12:55:00.000-05:002009-02-12T12:55:00.000-05:00I did not sent any paper to stoc this year, but i ...I did not sent any paper to stoc this year, but i would definitely prefer a PC that errs on the side of too restrictive COI. <BR/>In my opinion, I see 'a recent coauthor' not a reason for COI, but would mine if it is decided that way.<BR/>I see a clear COI when people are or were in the same institution for some time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-46216544143164880982009-02-12T11:19:00.000-05:002009-02-12T11:19:00.000-05:00Oded and Shafi: it bewilders me that you both appe...Oded and Shafi: it bewilders me that you both appear to be fighting so strongly for the right to commit conflicts of interest. Why do you think that to be more important than the rights of the submitters to have their papers discussed free from such conflicts?<BR/><BR/>This is, by the way, not the first time I've seen people leave the room for conflicts of interest in a STOC PC meeting, so I don't think Michael was setting any kind of exciting new precedent here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-77088394492075761202009-02-12T04:43:00.000-05:002009-02-12T04:43:00.000-05:00I was on the PC and as such feel conflicted about ...I was on the PC and as such feel conflicted about writing. <BR/>There is an unwritten rule that what goes on amongst the PC is private.<BR/>However, since the chair and other PC members seem comfortable with<BR/>disclosures about the COI issue,<BR/>I would like to clarify some of Shai's impressions.<BR/><BR/>The COI rules that were suggested did generate strong opposition by at least one committee member. However, there was no open debate<BR/>regarding this issue, as Michael felt that it was not a subject for<BR/>discussion but rather for a straw vote made to the chair.<BR/>One committee member chose not to attend the PC meeting since they<BR/>realized they would have had to spend a substantial amount of time out of the room, if they<BR/>followed the rules faithfully. Luckily, other PC members `didn't feel we lost out on needed expertise because of the policy' (I quote an earlier post).<BR/><BR/>I personally do not agree with this COI policy, nor do I find it necessary. Most of the reasons for this opinion have already been articulated by others in earlier posting.<BR/>I would like to add one point which has not been raised before. Regardless of the merit (or lack thereof) of this COI policy, <BR/>I think it is IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT in our highly collaborative field, IF senior members of the community are to continue to be a part of future PC's. To give you an example, as someone who has been publishing at these conferences for about 27 years, to follow the rules proposed strictly, I would have had to exit the room between 30-50 times.<BR/><BR/>One may take the position that senior people are not essential for the make up of a good PC. Certainly, according to these rules, they are likely to have conflict of interest with almost `everyone' whose work they understand.<BR/>Does this mean they lack have the ability to exercise sound and `impartial' judgment?? <BR/>I have great respect for the young people in this field.<BR/>Many are technically brilliant beyond anything my generation was capable of. As we like to say, they can `digest stones'.<BR/>But, are they less biased and more `impartial' than senior people? <BR/>I strongly doubt it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07026411066780631488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-15152196674731705102009-02-11T06:02:00.000-05:002009-02-11T06:02:00.000-05:00For the sake of the community, I post my answer to...For the sake of the community, I post my answer to Shai,<BR/>who wrote me email reproducing his posting.<BR/>I was hopining that people will write me email<BR/>rather than post on the blog...<BR/><BR/>Oded<BR/><BR/>ENCL: EXTRACTS FROM MY EMAIL TO SHAI<BR/><BR/>>> From shai.halevi@gmail.com Wed Feb 11 07:58:48 2009<BR/>>> Oded, you wanted to get replies by email, so here is one..<BR/><BR/>[I was hoping that people will write to me rather than post...]<BR/><BR/>>> A bit off-topic perhaps, but I disagree at some level with Oded's<BR/>>> description of the relations between the PC and its chair:<BR/>>><BR/>>> ... a "PC" is entrusted to determine the scientific program of the<BR/>>> conference according to predetermined principles and that a "chair"<BR/>>> is merely the person that orchestrates the work of a committee<BR/>>> according to predetermined procedures<BR/>>><BR/>>> I tend to think of the chair as the one who is entrusted with<BR/>>> determining the scientific program, and the PC as a body whose job is to<BR/>>> assist the chair. This is clearly how the review process is perceived<BR/>>> "from the outside": the chair is the one appointed by the steering<BR/>>> committee, and the chair is also the editor of the resulting<BR/>>> proceedings.<BR/><BR/>I strongly disagree with you and am quite surprised that you think so.<BR/>I am aware that some people "from the outside" say this at times,<BR/>but I'm surprised that a clever person being in "sound mind (mood)"<BR/>thinks so.<BR/><BR/>A chair (of a PC or any other committee) is merely the person<BR/>that runs the committee. This may include choosing the committee,<BR/>but from that point on all the decisions are of the committee.<BR/><BR/>The model you describe is a different one, which when existing<BR/>is referred to an advisory board to the decision-maker.<BR/>This is NOT how PC are understood in TCS<BR/>(neither in FOCS/STOC nor in TCC or RANDOM or CC,<BR/>to cite confrences in which i am quite involved).<BR/><BR/>>> Beyond just play of words, I think that the chair has more leverage in<BR/>>> setting rules and procedures than what's implied by Oded's description.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the chair has a ruling power in two aspects<BR/>(1) reminding all what is the procedure in place<BR/> and insisting that it be followed.<BR/>(2) making various low-level and technical decision<BR/> invlved in running the committee.<BR/>The chair has no madate to introduce major changes in<BR/>the common procedures, let alone without proper consultation<BR/>of the PC and in light of strong opposition of some of its members.<BR/>Note that doing so is also a breach of confidence wrt these members,<BR/>who agreed to served under one set of rules and practices...<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, when the chair acts within the domain of (1) and (2) above,<BR/>he/she ***should be very careful NOT to use these powers in order to<BR/>promote his/her own views***.<BR/>The fact that MM violated this basic principle<BR/>(and thus has abused his chairing powers)<BR/>is what made me react to his posting...<BR/><BR/>>> Just as I believe that PC members should generally be trusted with the<BR/>>> review process and not saddled with unnecessary rules, I also believe<BR/>>> that chairs should generally be trusted with making the rules (and not<BR/>>> saddled with unnecessary meta-rules about what procedures they can or<BR/>>> cannot establish).<BR/><BR/>a) The chairs do not have a mandate to make rules (except technical ones),<BR/> they only have a mandate to implement the common rules.<BR/>b) I distinguish between informal meta-rules of proper behavior<BR/> and formal rules that will always fail to capture this evasive notion.<BR/> The principles I used in my reasoning are not stated anywhere<BR/> (i.e., not in TCS documents at least). They are just common sense.<BR/><BR/>>> The PC members should be consulted and the rules must<BR/>>> be made clear everyone, but I don't see how making "reasonable" rules by<BR/>>> the chair can be considered an abuse of power.<BR/><BR/>The rule made by MM is, in my opinion,<BR/>not "reasonable" at a sufficient level to allow him to DICTATE IT<BR/>(e.g., he ack's that it was controversial in the PC).<BR/>Thus, in my opinion, he did abuse his powers both in the procedure<BR/>he employed (for deciding on this rule -- see my previous post)<BR/>and in the fact that he followed the rule in face of objection.<BR/><BR/>>> As to what is a "reasonable" rule, the test is actually very simple: A<BR/>>> rule is "reasonable" is the PC accepts it. If Oded was serving on<BR/>>> Michael's committee, then maybe the leave-the-room rule would have<BR/>>> generated a heated debate and eventually rejected. From Michael's<BR/>>> description, it seems that the committee accepted this rule without much<BR/>>> fuss. In my book, this makes this rule reasonable.<BR/><BR/>I reject this definition of "reasonable" when meant to describe cases<BR/>in which the chair can decide on action by him/herself.<BR/>I wish to distinguish two cases re arguing for the legitimacy<BR/>of activating the new COI rule in the last PC.<BR/><BR/>1) If the basis for legitimacy is a majority vote (as hinted above),<BR/> then this can serve as a basis only after a general and extensive<BR/> discussion of the committee. This legitmacy (for a controversial act)<BR/> cannot be based on a strew vote, let alone one taking place before<BR/> any general discussion.<BR/><BR/>2) If the basis for legitimacy is the chair's ruling,<BR/> then I claim that the chair has no such mandate in such matters<BR/> and thus the decision is illegitimate.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, in my opinon such a change of rules should have<BR/>been discussed at the very beginning of the PC work.<BR/><BR/>OdedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-5731095773405446552009-02-11T05:19:00.000-05:002009-02-11T05:19:00.000-05:00I don't think we've heard yet from the PC(or if we...I don't think we've heard yet from the PC<BR/>(or if we did I missed it)<BR/>so... <BR/>I was on the PC, and I'd like to<BR/>thank Michael for doing a thorough and<BR/>conscientious job. <BR/><BR/>Leslie Goldberg.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09967672998057901441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-69582731210268127692009-02-11T02:08:00.000-05:002009-02-11T02:08:00.000-05:00Indeed, you did not say the hell with everybody el...Indeed, you did not say the hell with everybody else. Apologies for rephrasing. <BR/><BR/>Eventually you need to decide if it is merely a procedural issue or a substantial one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-24158633285678193422009-02-11T01:54:00.000-05:002009-02-11T01:54:00.000-05:00Anon 37: How odd that you quote that, since, actu...Anon 37: How odd that you quote that, since, actually, I don't think anyone said anything like that, or even close.Michael Mitzenmacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161032642563814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-16266666291963005352009-02-11T01:46:00.000-05:002009-02-11T01:46:00.000-05:00It is amusing to see a discussion about transparen...It is amusing to see a discussion about transparency and public debate end with "the PC chair makes these decisions and the hell with everybody else".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-10037537564638887512009-02-11T00:46:00.000-05:002009-02-11T00:46:00.000-05:00A bit off-topic perhaps, but I disagree at some le...A bit off-topic perhaps, but I disagree at some level with Oded's description of the relations between the PC and its chair:<BR/><BR/><I>... a "PC" is entrusted to determine the scientific program of the conference according to predetermined principles and that a "chair" is merely the person that orchestrates the work of a committee according to predetermined procedures</I><BR/><BR/>I tend to think of the chair as the one who is entrusted with determining the scientific program, and the PC as a body whose job is to assist the chair. This is clearly how the review process is perceived "from the outside": the chair is the one appointed by the steering committee, and the chair is also the editor of the resulting proceedings. <BR/><BR/>Beyond just play of words, I think that the chair has more leverage in setting rules and procedures than what's implied by Oded's description. Just as I believe that PC members should generally be trusted with the review process and not saddled with unnecessary rules, I also believe that chairs should generally be trusted with making the rules (and not saddled with unnecessary meta-rules about what procedures they can or cannot establish). The PC members should be consulted and the rules must be made clear everyone, but I don't see how making "reasonable" rules by the chair can be considered an abuse of power. <BR/><BR/>As to what is a "reasonable" rule, the test is actually very simple: A rule is "reasonable" is the PC accepts it. If Oded was serving on Michael's committee, then maybe the leave-the-room rule would have generated a heated debate and eventually rejected. From Michael's description, it seems that the committee accepted this rule without much fuss. In my book, this makes this rule reasonable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-81813536026821579562009-02-10T15:44:00.000-05:002009-02-10T15:44:00.000-05:00Oded --Right. Then we agree to disagree.Oded --<BR/><BR/>Right. Then we agree to disagree.Michael Mitzenmacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161032642563814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-24004310300937195862009-02-10T15:36:00.000-05:002009-02-10T15:36:00.000-05:00Dear Michael,My impression was that I was quite bl...Dear Michael,<BR/><BR/>My impression was that I was quite blunt in my initial posting,<BR/>but it seems that I was not blunt enough. So let me try to be<BR/>even more blunt now.<BR/><BR/>I consider the abuse of power entrusted in a person<BR/>to be one of the worse cases of unethical behavior.<BR/><BR/>(I am aware that some people think that COI policy<BR/>of the type that you introduced are meant to prevent<BR/>such abuses when they take the form of a biased evaluation <BR/>of papers by PC members (whicd I'd actually call "dishonesty").<BR/>However, I disagree with the effectiveness of formal rules <BR/>in coping with these cases, and believe that other ways are <BR/>much more effective (and have no harmful side effects). <BR/>But this was not the focus of my initial posting.)<BR/><BR/>The focus of my initial posting was the abuse of power<BR/>entrusted on a chairperson of a committee. I wrote<BR/><I>I wish to stress the words "entrusted" and "PC chair"<BR/>(and remind you that a "PC" is entrusted to determine the scientific<BR/>program of the conference according to predetermined principles<BR/>and that a "chair" is merely the person that orchestrates the work<BR/>of a committee according to predetermined procedures).</I><BR/><BR/>I was referring to the description of the events <BR/>as appearing in your own blog (of Feb 1st). <BR/>This description mentions <B>no extensive discussion</B>,<BR/>but rather a strew vote (taking place before any general discussion) <BR/>and a chairperson processing the conflicting opinions <BR/>(again without mention of a general discussion), <BR/>and ruling according to his understanding <BR/>(i.e., you explicitly say that YOU made the decision).<BR/>Furthermore, it was stated that there was a minority that opposed the motion,<BR/>and in my opinion the combination of improper procedure and a controversial reform<BR/>suffices to make one require that the decision be revoked and made void.<BR/>(Bear in mind that we are not talking about some minor technicality,<BR/>but rather about a significant change of the common practices of PCs in STOC.)<BR/><BR/>The key paragraph is (partially) reproduced here.<BR/>"But I asked the PC for a straw vote, and a large majority of those <BR/>with an opinion thought ... I should be clear, however, that this idea <BR/>was quite controversial; many PC members expressed a very clear <BR/>and vocal dislike for a policy ... Indeed, it was definitely the most <BR/>controversial decision I made as the PC chair."<BR/><BR/>My (reasonable) assumption was and is that the above provides <BR/>a good description of the process in which the decision was made.<BR/>I find this process highly inappropriate and believe that the <BR/>chairperson's actions constituting a clear case of abuse of power. <BR/><BR/>I don't recall whether you describe the minority's reaction to your decision<BR/>(once made) and whether the entire PC was made aware of the controversy.<BR/>In my opinion,the minority should have demanded that the decision be revoked<BR/>and everybody on the PC should have supported this demand (regardless of his/her<BR/>opinion about the specific issue (i.e., your COI policy); just out of understanding <BR/>that such controversial decisions cannot be taken by a strew vote and are clearly<BR/>not up to the chairperson). If I were on the PC, then I would have resigned<BR/>immediately if this demand would not be granted.<BR/><BR/>OdedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-79655938133982765622009-02-10T13:08:00.000-05:002009-02-10T13:08:00.000-05:00In this blog the claim that "we are all civilized ...In this blog the claim that "we are all civilized adults" was only made by Michael. It is not an unusual tactic to make the weakest arguments in the name of your opponents and then to crush it. People complaint because they think wrong decisions are made. I have heard the claim that being on a PC is a lot of work only to make people unhappy. The right way to improve the decision making is far less superficial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-32094648792527721262009-02-10T12:06:00.000-05:002009-02-10T12:06:00.000-05:00I think having clear rules regarding CoI is indeed...I think having clear rules regarding CoI is indeed important and will help the whole process. In that sense I agree with Michael's proposal. <BR/>Saying that all other communities within CS have it for no reason or that we are all civilized adults who know how to behave is among the weakest sort of arguments I have heard. If true, it could be applied to the whole society at large and therefore no need for laws and rules. <BR/>I have heard far too many complaints from people about these things in our community. If you haven't, perhaps you are on the other end of the stick.<BR/>Something needs to be done to make things more transparent and make more trust.<BR/><BR/>Thanks to Michael for his work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-54110287501172424272009-02-10T09:52:00.000-05:002009-02-10T09:52:00.000-05:00Anon #30: If the issue then is just the procedura...Anon #30: If the issue then is just the procedural one, then I disagree with Oded on the extent of the change implemented (see my description of its working in practice), I disagree that I did not have the right make this policy as PC chair without further input, and I disagree that there was no "serious debate". In the end, though, as I think I've made clear, I made the decision, and I stand by it.Michael Mitzenmacherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02161161032642563814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8890204.post-76256998448522280742009-02-10T09:44:00.000-05:002009-02-10T09:44:00.000-05:00That exchange was about whether it was acceptable ...That exchange was about whether it was acceptable of Michael to make such significant changes without any serious debate, even among his own PC. Oded refused to get into the details of why the suggested policy is wrong, and this is completely fair as this was not the issue he raised (by the way, I don't think there is too much competition to Oded in terms of service to the community). He did suggest a more serious forum for debate – position papers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com