Are the conferences being held too often?

[Steve Dyer]

In article <1648 at ucsd.EDU> brian at ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
>I just KNOW I'm going to get flamed for this....
>I wonder if perhaps the USENIX conferences are being held too often - it
>seems to me that what with the main conferences about 6 months apart,
>and all the special workshops, etc., doesn't it seem that there just
>aren't enough GOOD papers being written out there to ensure that each
>conference has a full worthwhile technical program.

No, you're just saying something which has needed to be said for a
while.  It's even been said before.  I've come from the last two
conferences quite disappointed in the overall content of the technical
sessions.  In contrast, the tutorials have been very good sources
of specialized information.  Of course, this is no reflection on
the program committees, which can only use what is submitted.

It seems to be that the original USENIX meetings (Cambridge 77, New York 78
Boulder and Toronto 1979) were very valuable forums for exchanging infor-
mation you simply couldn't get anywhere else.  These days, with the
net, commercial UNIX periodicals (despite what you think of their quality),
competition from UNIforum, and other sources, the semiannual USENIX
conferences have become simply an excuse to party with other hackers.
Even this loses a bit of its charm when you start paying for the
privilege yourself. :-)

I'm not sure what the "answer" is.  For myself, it's deciding to
only attend one (if that) per year.  I would support a single
general meeting, with frequent and ample notification for paper due
dates.  The special-purpose workshops are nonetheless a great idea;
it's not clear to me how much they detract from the main submissions.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer at ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
dyer at arktouros.mit.edu