jadwa@csug.cs.reading.ac.uk (James Anderson) writes:
> There are two options open to us that retain the advantages (1-2),
> both of which give us an opportunity to ameliorate the
> disadvantages (3-5).
>
> A) Run PLUG 94 in conjunction with Expert Systems, but start
> negotiations earlier. (If we start negotiating in
> January/February we will get more of what we want.)
>
> B) Open Negotiations with AISB. If they are willing to have a
> PLUG stream then we might negotiate everything we want and
> have a conference that better reflects the diversity of PLUG
> members' interests. However, there is a real question of
> whether AISB would accept us. They have resisted multi-track
> conferences very strongly in the past.
>
> What are your views: A, B, or some other C?
I think the principal disadvantage with this year's association was
cost. ES conferences are notoriously expensive, and I certainly
think the cost of the conference would dissuade people attending
*just* for the PLUG component, at a stroke disbarring the conference
to the majority of past attendees (those without ES interests).
We've debated before the merits and demerits of associating PLUG
with a "proper" conference, but from your summary of the conference
(anyone else willing to provide a report?) it appears that this year
we certainly benefited on the quality of presentation aspects, as
well of course in the quality of organisation.
So it may well be worth pursuing the association option for another
year, but I concur that AISB might be a better host, if we can
persuade them to take us. So, option "B"'s the one for me.
James
--
School of Cognitive & Computing Sciences, Talk: +44-(0)273-678587
University of Sussex, JANET: jamesg@uk.ac.susx.cogs
Brighton BN1 9QH, UUCP: ...!mcsun!uknet!cogs!jamesg
United Kingdom Internet/JIPS: jamesg@cogs.susx.ac.uk
|