Tags: * for tracks, but only for a subset * video conference for new (meta)reviewers * first time authors should not review * sell opt-out better by contacting each author right after submission
"6 vs. 8 week cycle: I understand 8 weeks gives more flexibility on the reviewing side. An advantage
of 6 weeks is that if a draft feels rushed, asking the student author to wait a month and a half to
submit a more polished version seems like an easier sell than 2 months. Commitment deadline after every
review cycle: seems worth a try, but if a conference has 2 commitment deadlines, I wonder if all papers
not accepted in the 1st round will then have to be reconsidered, which seems redundant. (Maybe that's
OK if the 1st round aims to be more selective.) Will there be a metareview explaining the rejection
decision in the 1st round that authors + those making an acceptance decision in the 2nd round can see?
Will a paper rejected in the 1st round of commitment go in the 2nd round to the same decision-makers,
or different ones, or will it be random? Tracks: I don't have a strong opinion on the right strategy,
but one thing to consider is that a good chunk of submissions will have a very clear track (like ""MT"").
Maybe there should be a small number of these named tracks for larger areas, and the rest of the papers
could be matched to an SAE in a more nuanced way. A top priority in my opinion is ensuring that AC and
reviewer selection is well-informed (by good algorithms and also making sure humans do not trust the
algorithms too much!). Mentoring: One strategy could be to have a Zoom information session for new(ish)
ACs and new(ish) reviewers at the beginning of each cycle, to communicate expectations and for Q&A.
Opt-out: I think a lot of the complaints about the current policy are due to a lack of awareness of
the opt-out option/mechanism, especially by new authors. Maybe there could be a clearer process, e.g.
once a paper is submitted, each author gets an email informing them of the default and how to opt out.
And maybe first-time authors (if there is a reliable way to detect this) should not be added to the
list of candidate reviewers by default."