Topics for discussion:
- Transparency of the SoCG (or any conference's) review process: the authors submitting papers have the right to know how their papers are going to be reviewed, and to receive referee reports meeting at least some agreed-upon minimum quality standards.
- Checks and balances: double-blind review and a rebuttal period would ensure a much needed balance between the power and the responsabilities of program committee members. The expectation is that the extra effort involved may lead to a more responsible handling of the refereeing duties.
- Accountability: being asked to serve on a PC (or steering committee) is an honor, and comes with the responsability of accounting for one's judgements and decisions. Currently, there is virtually no mechanism for accountability.
- Democracy and representability: how is one selected to serve on the PC of a CG conference? Is the whole community represented? Is it appropriate that some conferences rotate the PC duties among basically the same group of people?
- Educating the referees: inexperienced reviewers should be educated about their duties, and informed on the reviewing process. Experienced reviewers should be reminded of their responsabilities and ethical concerns.