Minutes of the SGB Meeting
March 19-20, 2005
Hilton O'Hare Chicago

Participants:

Donna Baglio, ACM SIG Services Victor Bahl, SIGMOBILE Chair Alan Berenbaum, Past SGB Chair Hans Boehm, SGB EC Barrett Bryant, SIGAPP Chair Michael Burke, SIGPLAN Chair Jamie Callan, SIGIR Chair Alain Chesnais, SIGGRAPH Chair Erin Dolan, ACM SIG Services Kemal Ebcioglu, SIGMICRO Matthew Farrens, SIGARCH Sec/Treas Hal Gabow, SIGACT Chair Maria Gini, SIGART Chair Erik Goodman, SIGEVO Chair Vicki Hanson, SIGACCESS Chair David Harrison, SIGAda Vice Chair David Hicks, SIGWEB Vice Chair Mary Jane Irwin, Pubs Bd Co-Chair Ramesh Jain, SIGMM Chair

Tom Jewett, SIGCAS Chair Joe Konstan, SGB EC/SIGCHI Chair Eydie Lawson, SIGITE Chair Jeanna Neefe Matthews, SIGOPS Treas Peter Nuernberg, SIGWEB Chair Tamer Ozsu, SGB EC/SIGMOD Chair David Patterson, ACM President Darren Ramdin, ACM Finance Dept Jen Rexford, Council/SIGCOMM Chair Pat Ryan, ACM COO Janice Sipior, SGB EC/SIGMIS Chair Scott Tilley, SIGDOC Chair John Tufarolo, SIGSIM Chair Emil Volcheck, SIGSAM Chair Henry Walker, SGB EC/SIGCSE Chair Robert Walker, SGB EC/SIGDA Chair Michael Wellman, SIGecom Chair John White, ACM CEO Alex Wolf, SGB EC/SIGSOFT Chair

The meeting began at 6:30 pm with introductions and a roll call conducted by SGB Chair Walker.

1.0 State of the ACM (White)

Educational Activities include the launch of the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) on January 1, 2005. The membership stands currently at 2,000 with 1/3 of its members residing outside of the US. The recent hearing concerning the NCAA eligibility for college athletes has caused a great deal of concern in the computer science industry. As of August 1, 2005, computer science will no longer be considered a requirement within the core courses for college athletes seeking NCAA eligibility. With support from various universities and technical institutions, ACM and CSTA have made it a priority to provide support to the CS industry by requesting an immediate reversal in the decision. Additionally, CSTA is willing to work with the NCAA and provide suggested guidelines (i.e. ACM K-12 guidelines) to maintain the core curriculum that includes computer science education.

ACM is continuing its multi-year brand awareness initiative. ACM and its members have and will continue to advance computing as a science as well as a profession. We need to enhance our skills, broaden our community and promote our perspectives. Additional focus is being placed on public relations in areas such as: SIGs, Awards, CSTA, and Policy activities in Washington DC. ACM recently appeared as a question/answer in the televised game show, Jeopardy attesting to the importance of the public awareness of ACM as a whole.

A Council offsite has been scheduled to review and set strategic direction for ACM. A task force was established to conduct pre-work on how ACM can better serve professionals (practitioners/managers) and the profession. The recommendation from the Task Force was to launch a major initiative to services relevant to practitioners and position ACM as really serving both the science and the profession. The initiatives suggested included: support for professional career development; major enhancement of professional development resources; introduction of an ACM certification program that is valued specification of individual capability; introduction of graded membership categories; increase professional recognition for practitioners and managers; increase local activities and integrate them better into ACM and actively promote and be an advocate for the IT profession.

2.0 DL Return Recommendation (Berenbaum, Chesnais)

The proposed redistribution formula will be especially helpful to new SIGS such asSIGITE and SIGBED. Chesnais indicated that the key to higher revenue distribution lies within the promotion of the DL and that each SIG should be prompting its conferences to include the proceedings on the DL. This guideline/formula for distribution will be reviewed in conjunction with the discussions of the allocation delta during future meetings.

The SGB discussed the proposal and reviewed the documentation which indicated the amounts by which each SIG would be affected. It was noted that SIGPLAN, SIGCHI and SIGGRAPH would lose the most. All 3 SIGs were represented and indicated strong support for the proposal.

Motion:	Modify the DL revenue distribution mechanism by adding the phrase: No SIG will receive less than $10,000 in DL revenue. Motion proposed by the SGB EC and passed by the SGB.
Action:	Ramdin to modify the DL revenue distribution mechanism so that no SIG will receive less than $10,000.

3.0 CSTA Task Force Recommendation (Chesnais)

The task force included members of both the SIGITE and SIGCSE communities and was set up as a result of the fall meeting where ACM made a request to the SGB for financial support of the Computer Science and Teachers Association.

Many members of the SGB voiced support for CSTA but were concerned about the effect that funding the program for $100K/year would have on their budgets. Chesnais reminded the SGB of the original intent for the DL revenue distribution in that half of the revenue would be reserved for 'good works'. Until now, there were no proposals put forth and so the entire revenue was distributed amongst the SIGs. Chesnais suggests that the SGB consider its original intent and include the CSTA funding request as 'good works' proposal.

The SGB requested additional information on the CSTA program and budget in order to make a decision. The CSTA task force provided details at the close of the meeting and agreed to pick up the discussion the following day to give the SGB time to review.

4.1 SIGACCESS Viability Review (Hanson)

Motion:	The SGB thanks the SIGACCESS EC for the steps they have taken to move the SIG out of transition. The SGB applauds their fiscal responsibility and moves the SIG out of transition and into permanent status for the next 2 years. Motion proposed by the SGB EC and unanimously passed by the SGB.
Action:	Baglio to inform appropriate staff that SIGACCESS has been taken out of transition and placed in permanent status for a 2 year period.
Action:	Frawley to modify viability schedule and schedule SIGACCESS for March'07 review.

4.2 SIGMICRO Viability Review (Ebcioglu)

Motion:	The SGB finds SIGMICRO viable and will continue its status for the next 4 years. Motion proposed by the SGB EC and unanimously passed by the SGB.
Action:	Frawley to modify viability schedule and schedule SIGMICRO for March'09 review.

4.3 SIGMM Viability Review (Jain)

Motion:	The SGB finds SIGMM viable and will continue its status for the next 4 years. Motion proposed by the SGB EC and unanimously passed by the SGB.
Action:	Frawley to modify viability schedule and schedule SIGMM for March'09 review.

4.4 SIGSAC Viability Review (Jajodia)

Motion:	The SGB finds SIGSAC viable and will continue its status for the next 4 years. Motion proposed by the SGB EC and unanimously passed by the SGB.
Action:	Frawley to modify viability schedule and schedule SIGSAC for March'09 review.

5.1 SGB/SGB EC (R. Walker)

The dechartering of SIGGROUP
The continuation of the SIGGROUP conferences
CSTA task force appointed
Conference submission task force appointed
Discussed recognition of Fellows with the Awards Committee

5.2 ACM Council (R. Walker)

During the October 2004 SGB meeting, Walker suggested that SIGs actively "endorse" members of their community for ACM Fellow, and also actively "recognize" members of their community who become Fellows. He carried this suggestion to ACM Council, and to the ACM Awards Committee.

As a result, the ACM Awards Committee will now notify the SGB Chair of the new Fellows, soon after the Fellows themselves are notified that they have received the award. The SGB Chair will then distribute that list to the SGB.

The SGB was encouraged to consider providing additional recognition for the Fellows in their community, perhaps at a conference. The only constraint on this additional recognition is that the SIGs realize that the primary recognition of new Fellows is at the ACM Awards Banquet, where they officially receive their Fellow award, as in the past. SIGs can offer additional recognition, perhaps a certificate or a plaque at their conference, but that additional recognition should follow the ACM Awards Banquet (usually scheduled for mid-June).

5.3 Membership Services Board Report (Konstan)

ACM's website is currently undergoing a redesign. There is an extensive amount of work being done and the technical challenges are substantial.

The Digital Media Collection group is moving forward with the anticipation of an inexpensive yet high quality outcome. Konstan requested feedback and/or questions that can be directed to the MSB.

5.4 Education Board (Lawson)

5.5 Publications Board (Irwin)

A task force is being developed to define the future direction of CACM. The next stage in the Digital Library development is how to increase its growth potential (i.e. TR "Grey" Literature, Conference Video etc.). Issues the Pubs Board will continue to review include: electronic vs. print publications and the long term direction for ACM; plagiarism issues and policies. It is obvious that stricter policies and guidelines must be enforced.

Wolf indicated some concern regarding the communication between the Pubs Board and the SGB in the development of new Journals. Irwin agreed that there have been communication issues in the past but that she and the board are committed to changing that. The intent is to secure SGB feedback from appropriate SIG leaders before the publications board makes a final decision on approving a journal. That was done successfully with the newly approved KDD Journal.

5.6 USACM (Volcheck)

In general the committee takes positions on general public policy and in return provides education/information to the decision makers. The committee (as well as ACM) is careful not to take a specific stand on a particular issue but rather provide background information and general ideas as to how the legislation can be more effective. The SIGs can help support USACM by promoting good government. Volcheck indicated that there is an open seat on the USACM EC and volunteers from the SGB community are welcome. He also invited leaders to learn more by visiting the USACM blog.

5.7 CRA Report (Rexford)

6.1 SIGSAM Viability Review (Volcheck)

Motion:	The SGB is concerned about SIGSAM's financial situation. The SGB suggests that the leadership consider making the newsletter available electronically rather than in print. SIGSAM will continue their permanent status for the next 2 years and will be required to have a viability review in March'07. The SGB requests a written update be given to the SGB EC in March'06. Motion proposed by the SGB EC and passed by the SGB.
Action:	Frawley to modify viability schedule and schedule SIGSAM for March'07 review.
Action:	Volcheck to provide SGB EC with written update on SIGSAM activities and finances in March'06.

6.2 SIGSIM Viability Review (Tufarolo)

Motion:	The SGB finds SIGSIM viable and will continue its status for the next 4 years. Motion proposed by the SGB EC and unanimously passed by the SGB.
Action:	Frawley to modify viability schedule and schedule SIGSIM for March'09 review.

6.3 SIGSOFT Viability Review (Wolf)

Motion:	The SGB finds SIGSOFT viable and will continue its status for the next 4 years. Motion proposed by the SGB EC and unanimously passed by the SGB.
Action:	Ignatoff to modify viability schedule and schedule SIGSOFT for March'09 review.

7.0 SGB Vote on DL and CSTA Recommendations

Chesnais indicated that the projected growth of the DL revenue is expected to be $200K in FY'06. To help prepare the incoming SIG leaders, he suggested that $100K from that growth be used for the CSTA support. This would still leave the SIGs with $100K more than the previous year.

The SIG leaders indicated support for the program but were concerned about committing for the full 5 years. What would happen if the DL revenue didn't continue to grow or decreased? They suggested providing support for various lengths of time and decided that 3 years would be most appropriate. Rather than provide 3 years of support automatically they discussed making the funding annually renewable. The expectation is that CSTA will report to the SGB annually on its activities and finances, after which the SGB at its fall meeting shall vote on renewal.

CSTA should be urged to address the SGB concerns about the focus on US education only and the perceived focus on training computer scientists vs. CS training for a more general audience.

There was general support from the SGB for the program but concerns about how funding would affect each of the SIGs. It was agreed that if the SGB supported funding, SIG leaders would not be asked to revise their recently completed budgets and would be permitted to carry a deficit in the amount of CSTA funding each provided.

Motion:

The SGB allocates $100K per year, from DL revenue, to support the CSTA. The first year for such support Is FY'06. The SGB funding shall be annually renewable, for a period of 3 years. CSTA shall report to the SGB annually on its activities and finances, after which the SGB at its fall meeting shall vote on renewal. The SGB strongly urges CSTA to address its concerns about the focus on US education only and the perceived focus on training computer scientists vs. CS training for a more general audience. Motion proposed by the SGB EC and passed by the SGB

Action:

R. Walker to send note to Chris Stevenson informing her that the SGB allocated $100K per year for CSTA funding. Note should indicate that the funding is renewable for 3 years with the endorsement of the SGB, the concerns of the SGB and the reporting requirements of CSTA.

8.0 Report from Conference Task Force (Wolf)

Wolf suggested gathering more data from multiple perspectives internally and externally to ACM. Hard data from the PC, PC members and authors to include:

PC - size, membership, overlap, load
PC member - PCs, rotation, authorship, load
Author - submissions, resubmissions
Survey data from: PC Chair, PC members, authors, attendees and readers.

The task force suggested that the SGB consider holding a SC Chairs summit to understand the broader community effects, discuss and share data and discuss and share PC procedures. It could be convened by the ACM President and the SGB Chair.

It was also suggested that the ACM and IEEE-CS Presidents convene a greybeard panel to rethink the role and relationship of conferences and journals. The taskforce was thanked for their report.

9.0 Conference Program Committee Discussion (Patterson)

Patterson has asked ACM EC members to add a slide on "why join ACM" to their talks and he encouraged the SGB to do the same. Non-membership does not indicate a poor selection of PC members but rather that additional/better marketing needs to be done so that PC members become members of ACM and/or the sponsoring SIG. The SGB requested that Patterson make the slide he put together on "why join ACM" available.

10.0 Best Practices - SIG Governance Focus (R. Walker)

SIGDA has a 5 person EC with those officers having the right to vote. They also have an appointed advisory board that doesn't have voting rights but comlements the officers. In the past SIGDA found 2 great candidates for each position and it was difficult to lose one of them in the election. The new SIGDA model allows a slate of 8 plus people with membership voting in the top 6 to the EC. The EC will then vote among themselves for the named positions. That allows the best 2 people stay involved.

Some SIGs have indicated they're grooming someone for Chair and have requested exemptions from the SGB EC to run a single candidate. Other SIGs have a crucial position and have asked to run one person. Some of the bylaw changes now permit SIGs to run single candidates.

SIGCSE has the standard structure of officers but did change length of terms. 2 years was short and they were requesting an automatic extension. Terms are now 3 years with officers being allowed to run again but not permitted to extend.

SIGDOC has the standard officer positions with 2 year terms but now includes 2 or 3 members at large.

SIGCOMM may consider changing their term length. 3 year terms seem attractive. 2 years is not enough and 4 years is too long. They have concerns about all leaders having to agree to renew. It can force an overcommitted leader into a position they don't really want.

SIG METRICS has the standard structure of officers and appointed officers.

SIGMICRO finds 2 candidates to run for the position of Chair and 5 candidates for a 4 person member at large committee. The distribution of tasks is decided by the Chair and Nominating Committee for continuity

SIGART was a conference only SIG with appointed officers. The new single SIG designation has forced them back into the election process. They will run 2 candidates for each of the 3 officer positions with 3 year terms.

SIGPLAN VC is the conference overseer and for 4 elections in a row and they've asked for an exception to run a single candidate each time. The have modified their bylaws to allow a single candidate for this position. They will run 2 candidates for Chair, 1 or more for VC and at least seven consenting candidates for the remaining six elected positions of the Executive Committee.

SIGCHI has made many changes to governance and has of elected officers run in pairs. The President and VP run as a pair as well as VP of finance and Pubs. SIGCHI also has members at large. Other positions are appointed so that an individual can continue even under a new board. There is a long tradition of an extended executive committee of who at any given time 4 or 5 are active. SIGCHI is lucky to have a long list of willing volunteers and the officers are being encouraged to delegate.

SIGMIS has a standard structure of 3 officers with 2 year terms. Three year terms may be better so the SIG may consider this in the future. They also may want to separate the positions of Secretary/Treasurer.

SIGOPS has a standard structure of 3 officers with 2 year terms. The EC position of Chair plus Members-at-Large may be a better way to govern. SIGOPS may consider a change in the future.

SIGACCESS has a standard structure of 3 officers with 2 year terms.

SIGIR runs 2 candidates for each of the 4 elected offices for a 2 year period. They often extend so they are considering moving to a 3 year model. They have no trouble securing candidates. There are lots of opportunities for involving people making a nice advancement path.

SIGACT has 3 named officers and 2 members-at-large. They will run at least 2 candidates for chair and 5 candidates for the other named positions.

SIGAda has a large slate of officers: past chair, VC for conferences, VC liaison, Secretary, Treasurer, Int'l Rep. Terms were always 2 years and 2 candidates for each.

SIGAPP was a conference SIG so the current 4 officers were appointed. They are up for election and are running 2 candidates for each position. Terms are 2 years. The slate includes 3 of the current officers that are standing up for reelection. All people that lose will be appointed to a committee.

SIGSAM experienced a problem with the requirement to have all officers renew. This could force a SIG to bring along someone that doesn't want to renew.

Some SGB members suggested that there be no automatic renewals just longer terms.

The SGB will look at this topic again with the expectation that the SIG leaders that have modified their structure provide an update on how it is working.

11. Other Business

The next SGB meeting will be held on August 13th. It will be preceded by a day of new officer orientation. SIG leaders were asked to inform their executive committees and candidates.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm.