Minutes of the September 21, 2002 SGB - Draft
1.0 - Welcome and Introductions
The meeting began at 9:00 am. Klein and Berenbaum welcomed the attendees and each of the participants introduced themselves.
2.0 - Program Reviews
2.1 - SIGCOMM
Craig Partridge, SIGCOMM Chair, presented the program review.
The following information was taken from the written report presented to the SIGs. The primary mission of ACM/SIGCOMM is the discussion of topics in the field of communications and computer networks, including technical design and engineering, regulation and operations, and the social implications of computer networking.
SIGCOMM's goal is to continue to expand its scope, intellectually and geographically, and to navigate future years carefully, balancing between the budget and people management.
SIGCOMM actively sponsors several workshops and awards. The annual SIGCOMM Award was given out for the 12th year.
Partridge reported that their membership loss has scaled down. SIGCOMM has a large fraction of international members, currently concentrated in Europe.
The annual SIGCOMM conference is now recorded with the CiteSeer as the ACM publication with the highest rating. Their student travel grant program continues to encourage a large number of students to attend the conference. In 2001, SIGCOMM contributed $30K towards the student travel grant.
Partridge reported on the group's initiatives, indicating that for the first time in three years, SIGCOMM's flagship conference, the annual ACM SIGCOMM Conference 2001, held in San Jose, lost money. This was due to the fact that the organizers authorized too many complimentary registrations.
SIGCOMM continues to publish proceedings and its newsletter is issued five times a year. CCR regularly provides a variety of additional services, including bibliographies of recent publications in other journals, book reviews, workshop reports, calls for papers, and general news of the data-networking field.
Motion: Move that SIGCOMM continue in its current status as a multi-service SIG for the next 4 years.
2.1 - SIGARCH
Alan Berenbaum, SIGARCH Chair presented the program review.
The following information was taken from the written report he presented to the SIGs. The primary mission of ACM SIGARCH is to be the forum where researchers and practitioners of computer architecture can exchange ideas.
SIGARCH continues to actively sponsor conferences/awards (often in cooperation with other SIGs and Societies) and publishes a newsletter issued five times a year.
SIGARCH annually supports travel grants to students who attend ISCA, ASPLOS and PACT. The new grants implemented this year were 'hardship grants'.
Berenbaum reported on the group's declining membership. There is some encouragement in that the membership retention rate is among the highest rates of stable SIGs.
Thanks to the long-running SC'XY conference, SIGARCH enjoys a blooming fund balance. SIGARCH and the SC Steering Committee have agreed that future profits from SC'XY will be in large part returned to the SC community. In FY 2002, SIGARCH maintained the funding of a 2-year program to invest in developing the conference's outreach to teachers and students from under-served populations.
SIGARCH's goals include the Digital Compendium, which requires obtaining permission from IEEE-CS to distribute their material, to complete the "30 years of ISCA" DVD and to provide to all members a DVD of SIGARCH-sponsored conferences, including presentation materials.
SIGARCH is an active and expanding SIG with a hearty track record. SIGARCH remains financially stable with a devoted membership. The main concern, as has been in previous years, is how to retain the membership. SIGARCH is assured that the projects such as the Computer Architecture Digital Library will help to recruit and retain members.
Motion: Move that SIGARCH continue in its current status as a multi-service SIG for the next 4 years.
3.0 - SGB EC Recommendations and Reports
3.1 - Finance Report
Alain Chesnais, SGB Past Chair, presented the FY 2002 financial summary report. The report focused on the condition of SIG ACM finances. SIGs came in at a loss ($2M) due to the over-budgeting of conference revenue. This fiscal year is the first year SIGs show a loss across the board; if there is no re-direction, there will be a loss next year ($2.5M est.).
Spending down the fund balance to run programs is suitable. However, in anticipation of actual conference income that doesn't occur, this can present a problem.
The SIGGRAPH conferences lost money. Right now, SIGGRAPH is experiencing lower than anticipated attendance which results in lower actual conference revenue. SIGGRAPH 2001 did not lose money but it also did not collect the anticipated revenue.
In respect to the OOPSLA 2001 conference, it just happened at the wrong place and at the wrong time.
The five large conferences' collective proceeds are about 80% of the total SIG revenue. If situations get any worse, this can be an immense problem.
The short-term goal is for SIG Leaders to work with the large conferences for more realistic planning. All SIG leaders are asked to make every effort to become more conservative, and to maintain more controls on expenses. Conferences are bringing in less than before, therefore a contingency must be built into the conference budget. In fact, the SGB EC expects a contingency percentage in all conference budgets. SIG Leaders need to be sure the Conference Leaders are taking account of all the risks. The longer-term goal is to look at some of the long-standing systemic issues.
The Membership Modeling Project is to be used as a vehicle to restructure and improve the business model for SIGs.
For FY 2003, we need to budget for a conference revenue similar to the FY 2002 actual financial report and also for a significant operational expense in excess of revenue. In the past, this has been offset by better than budgeted conference performance.
Five SIGs are budgeted to the end of FY 2003 and are below their required fund balance. They are SIGecom, SIGDOC, SIGCAPH, SIGMICRO, and SIGSAC.
Action: Berenbaum to ask Corless to review the TMRF and ask for input from the SIG Leaders and update as appropriate.
Action: Chesnais will lead the Task Force for review of allocation processes.
Action: SGB EC will develop a task force to review activities related to offering SIG publications on-line instead of hard-copy. Volunteers included Wolf, Partridge, Chesnais, Jewett, Ebcioglu, Haramundanis, and R. Brown. The SGB EC will continue this discussion.
3.2 - DL DistributionOver the last few years there has been discussion on the mechanics of distributing funds to the SIGs from the Digital Library. [The Task Force set up includes: Partridge, Walker and Niederman.] They will be looking at various possibilities for the DL Distribution. They will ask the SIG Chairs for input and will report back to the SGB EC with reasonable methods and needs of various sized groups.
Action: Niederman to ask for input from SIG Leaders for the DL Distribution.
3.3 - New SIG Allocation and Required Fund Balance
The number of SIGs has dropped for the last few years but there are possibilities for new SIGs coming on board. The SIGs did take this into account when the new allocation formula was developed.
Recommendation on Fund Balance Requirements and Allocation for new SIGs
Bruce Klein made the following recommendation which the SGB EC endorsed and will move forward to the SGB for approval.
This policy proposes a two-year modification of the allocation formula for a new SIG and a three-year target for building its fund balance.
- In addition to the $10,000 start up grant, a new SIG gets in its first charter year, there would be no allocation requirement, just apply the sliding percentage of expenses.
- In the second charter year budget, the allocation minimum be set at $10,000.
- In the third charter year budget, the regular allocation formula be used.
- The expectation that the required minimum fund balance be achieved by the end of the third charter year.
Motion: Adopt policy recommended by SGB for applying allocation to new SIGs
The SGB questioned whether the $10K was enough to start a SIG. It really depends on the circumstances; none of the recent new SIGs have had a problem because the fund was too low. However, there is a small SIG fund to assist if there are special needs.
The current allocation strategy was put in place for a re-evaluation in three years. The SGB will charter another sub-committee to make a recommendation strategy. It will be led by Chesnais.
3.4 - Transitional SIGs
Gabow provided a report for the transitional SIGs.
SIGAPP - became a conference-only SIG placed in transition to form a volunteer development plan. The SIGAPP Chair did not attend the meetings and has not been available via email.
SIGAPL - recently became a transitional conference-only SIG because of consequences regarding the Newsletters. In the short run they should be coming out of the transitional conference-only SIG status if Newsletter Issues remain on time.
SIGCAPH - was placed in transition because they are behind in their Newsletters. The SGB EC will work with the leadership to possibly become a conference-only SIG and to enable them to get caught up with their Newsletters.
SIGGROUP - is trying to re-organize themselves and they proposed having a meeting at the next CSCW Conference. They will construct a plan for critique succeeding that meeting.
SIGWEB - became a Conference-Only SIG based on the history of their Newsletters. Elli Mylonas has a concrete plan and looks like they will be caught up with their Newsletters as early as October 2002.
3.5 - Small SIG Fund
The Small SIG Fund has $100K for small projects if a SIG needs financial assistance.
The Small SIG Fund also made three awards:
SIGCAS - $15K for the E-Magazine
SIGMIS - has up to $15K to cover CPR-related issues due to merger w/SIGCPR
SIGSAC - has up to $1750 to cover the New Security Paradigms Workshop
4.0 - ACM Activities Update - Membership Modeling
CEO John White presented the Membership Modeling Project Report. This project involves ACM staff and senior volunteers in an effort to take a deep look at the model(s) that are used for membership in, and association with, ACM, and systematically develop, consider, research, and implement changes to the membership model. The objective is to deal with a number of systemic issues that have developed over the years, such as declining general ACM and SIG membership, significant numbers of individuals associated with ACM without any form of membership, a value proposition for membership in ACM that is neither compelling nor clear, an out-dated collection of benefits for different member categories, a sense that what ACM offers as an association (as distinct from specific products or SIGs) is very middle of the road. Among the comments received from surveys were that ACM falls short with helping people in their jobs.
The goal is to develop a model of ACM membership that more directly meets the needs of members and potential members by presenting a strong value proposition, and a compelling reason to join ACM and the SIGs.
In February 2002 preliminary discussions were held with Council and the SGB on the need to initiate work on ACM's membership model. Focus groups were gathered during FY'02 and the findings indicated a real problem in how members/non-members perceived the value of ACM versus the value of specific products and services.
Following this meeting, the larger goals and mission of the ACM were reviewed to provide context for potential work on membership models. ACM had made progress with many of the issues that were reviewed at previous retreats (Portal, New Professional Development Center, industry relationships [IBM, Microsoft, Intel], and the new practitioner magazine, ACM Queue). To address the current issues of declining membership and defining and reviewing membership benefits, ACM met with three consultants, and based on these discussions, a project was outlined to assess ACM and develop and vet proposed changes. The proposed project comprised three steps. First, to develop options by having a workshop to look at the current state of ACM and to develop a spectrum of models, solutions, and changes that ACM should consider. Secondly, to conduct market research to further refine and improve options, and to assess the impact of various options. Finally, to implement the specific models/solutions that were proposed by the market research.
The project had been discussed with Council in June 2002, and approved with the understanding that the Executive Committee would be involved in assessing and selecting models/solutions for targeted market research, and Council would be involved in assessing the results of that research and selecting models/solutions for implementation.
A workshop was held on June 11-12, 2002, at ACM HQ with MAB Chair David Arnold, and SGB Chair Alain Chesnais, and HQ staff, John White, Pat Ryan, Lillian Israel, Mark Mandelbaum, Wayne Graves, Jim Maurer. The meeting generated wide-ranging views on new models for individuals and institutions, but there was a general consensus on most points. It was clear that ACM was best at delivering focused content, building communities, and helping individuals to stay engaged. There was a general desire to grow membership without undermining our revenue models.
The brainstorming at the June meetings produced a new proposed model of professional membership, which has three classes: E-membership, Path Membership, and Core Membership. E-membership is a lightweight, electronic-only relationship with ACM that includes electronic services but no publications. Path-membership would be a fuller membership, but with a specific technical focus (path) on one of approximately ten technical paths. A technical path would be comprised of a set of related SIGs, SIG publications, conferences, ACM publications, Digital Library slice, PD center slice. A SIG, conference, and/or publication could exist in more than one path. There would be member discounts to conferences in the path. Core-membership would be a fuller membership that would include a Path-membership (SIG and Path publication); a general interests publication (CACM or Queue) full access to all Professional Development courses.
Following the June meeting, HQ staff worked on the financial implications of the three classes of membership to develop a first-pass at pricing that would reflect recovering the cost of providing the corresponding services. A consultant has been hired to conduct a qualitative assessment of this new model, and would engage both existing members and non-members to ensure that the descriptions of the different types of membership are clear and complete; obtain suggestions that we might want to incorporate into the model to make it more attractive; determine if the concept makes sense and can be tested more broadly; get an initial reading on the extent to which progress is being made relative to the goals of countering declining membership, etc.
The second step involves additional work on defining the Technical Paths that comprise ACM. David Arnold proposed a set of path definitions and further developed these with staff. A small group of SIG leaders are needed to help revise the path definitions with the intent of a better representation of what we are trying to achieve.
Among the potential paths suggested by David Arnold are the following:
- Business Systems & Management;
- Communications & Networking;
- Computer Science Foundations/Theory;
- Database Information & Information Retrieval;
- Education & Social Issues;
- Graphics & Multimedia;
- Hardware & System Software;
- Programming Languages;
- Software Engineering & Methodology.
The Council/SGB discussed whether there is a need for Paths. Currently about one-third of ACM's 53,000 members are also SIG members, and there is evidence that people want to belong to multiple SIGs. Council cautioned that, assuming people are enticed by free items, if the other two-thirds of the ACM membership sign up for this there would be a huge influx for the SIGs, and the impact on their publications may or may not be a good thing. White noted that this is a challenge, and one option would be to offer these pubs electronically. Another issue was why would an individual join more than one SIG if they have the DL slice, and the response was that theoretically one would receive discounts to all the conferences in the Path. If an individual wanted to become a SIG member only, and not have a relationship with ACM, he or she could become an E-member and join a particular SIG.
In-depth individual interviews with 17 individuals were held, 12 of who were members, and 5 non-members (one was a former member), and 11 belonged to a SIG. In the 45-minute interview, the current and new models were described, and each benefit of membership was described, and components of the most relevant path were shown. Among the findings were that change would be better than remaining with the status quo, and that with more options at different price points ACM would be more successful at retention. Cost of membership is also an issue for some - the $100 price may be a barrier. E-memberships were universally seen as a good idea. There were very positive views of the new PD courses, and many were pleasantly surprised by ACM's current electronic services in large part because they were unaware of them. Most indicated they would definitely renew, and those publications were their main reason for joining. One reason for not being a member was primarily a lack of awareness of what ACM offers.
Among the conclusions of the study, is that a multi-option membership appears to be a positive step. However, more in-depth quantitative testing is suggested. More work on the model is needed since the DL slice seems to be unappealing, and something needs to be added to E-membership to give it more of a sense of belonging to ACM. We are at the beginning and need SIG engagement in helping define Paths. We also need to conduct a quantitative study to assess impact and pricing of the model. Student and institutional models also need to be discussed. Finally, an implementation plan and impact assessment are necessary, as well as overall endorsement for making a change by the SGB, Council, EC, and Boards.
White noted that at this point, there is still much work to be done, however, if Council and the SGB indicate that it makes sense to go forward, this creates various opportunities. The SGB/Council discussion considered the financial impact, and how the DL fits into this model and agreed that additional work is needed. Also, concern was expressed that as a professional organization we should look out for the stature of our field, and it was felt that this was not compelling in this model. The sense of belonging to a professional association does not come out strongly, and the concern was that by cutting across a lot of different areas it may become confusing to clearly find a particular SIG. It was also felt that Path and Core were not easily understandable. Additional concerns were that certain members might have acm.org addresses and not know what ACM is, and that this will create competition among the SIGs with financial consequences. However, the reality is that some SIG balance sheets are going down very precipitously, and the overall impact on the SIGs should be considered. It was also noted that more freedom to choose what you get is a positive feature, and it would seem that we would need to explore various options to stem the tide of losing membership particularly since the field is getting larger. To move forward, the overall endorsement should be decided by 2003.
5.0 - FCRC Report
Barbara Ryder, FCRC 2003 Conference Chair presented the update report.
Dates/Location: June 7 - 14, 2003 in Mission Valley, CA
FCRC 2003 will be the site of the ACM Awards Ceremony and Banquet, Saturday June 7, 2003, and the Turing Award Lecture, Sunday evening June 8, 2003.
Barbara gave a status update covering the site visit, the faculty travel support proposals and the budget preparations. The Keynote Speaker schedule has been finalized, starting with the Turing Lecture on Sunday evening at 6PM. She also covered planned student activities.
A list of constituent meetings is available at http://fcrc.acm.org
Next on the schedule is soliciting industrial financial subsidies, especially for students, publicizing FCRC in SIG newsletters. In first quarter 2003, we will post housing and registration costs on website with early registration dates set, obtain final program info from constituent meetings, and send reminder postcards for registration through website.
6.0 - Program Reviews
6.1 - SIGCHI
Kevin Schofield, SIGCHI Chair, presented the program review.
The following information was taken from the written report presented to the SIGs. The primary mission of ACM/SIGCHI is to be the premier international society for professionals, academics and students who are interested in human-technology and human-computer interaction (HCI).
SIGCHI has a strong core membership, excellent conference programs, high quality technical content, and a growing local chapters program.
SIGCHI has also managed to sustain its required fund balance through cost-cutting and careful observance to expenses. Other highlights are a strong student base, great strength in Europe, CHI 2000 (2004) and a regional balance hedges economics. we have strong publications-- Interactions, TOCHI, Conference Proceedings-- and an awards program.
The key issues for SIGCHI are softness in CHI conference numbers, first year retention, CHI Letters viability, under-utilized PR/outreach opportunities. Also, the web site and overall branding doesn't reflect well on the organization.
As mentioned above, the effectiveness of the CHI Letters program is of concern. We want to make sure it is on a course that will be successful.
SIGCHI's proposed actions are to restructure CHI conference management and logistics, to survey CHI members and HCI community at large, to maintain CHI Letters viability assessment, to refresh HCI curricula recommendations, to step up PR/Outreach efforts, to spend conservatively and monitor expenses closely, to update SIGCHI's Bylaws, and to re-work branding and Web-site.
In summary, the economics of the CHI Conference have evolved over time to a model with high fixed expenses and low variable expenses. Unfortunately, this makes the conference vulnerable to major economic turndowns and has caused us to regroup.
SIGCHI also plans to preserve and strengthen core assets.
In conclusion, SIGCHI is a healthy and diverse organization with a leadership team that will work harder to keep the organization focused.
Motion: Move that SIGCHI continue in its current status as a multi-service SIG for the next 4 years.
6.2 - SIGMICRO
Kemal Ebcioglu, SIGMICRO Chair, presented the program review. The following information was taken from the written report presented to the SIGs. The primary mission of ACM/SIGMICRO is to stimulate the advancement of the state-of-the-art microarchitecture research.
SIGMICRO issues their Conference Proceedings to its membership.
SIGMICRO's long term goals toward addressing growth include continuing quality improvements to the MICRO conference series, initiating new high quality conferences, becoming a Web resource, establishing new student awards, and acting as a catalyst to establish links between industry and microarchitecture researchers.
For the past 35 years, the annual MICRO conference sponsored by SIGMICRO and IEEE TCARCH has been a key forum for presenting major breakthroughs and has established itself as a premier scientific conference on microprocessor design and microarchitecture. The upcoming MICRO-35 conferences are anticipated to be a great success. Conference leaders have received 150 submission and 36 have been accepted. As for MICRO-34, conferences are allowing author feedback for referee reports. For MICRO-35, a student advocate was appointed, and four corporations have already donated $15K.
A new SIGMICRO/SIGPLAN conference entitled "Code Generation and Optimization " (CGO) is planned. (It was "Feedback Directed and Dynamic Optimization Workshop," held four times in conjunction with the MICRO conference and was co-sponsored by SIGMICRO and IEEE TCARCH.)
In 2003 the workshop is going entrepreneurial: Code Generation and Optimization Conference, to be held March 2003 in San Francisco, CA. The conference series will be co-sponsored by SIGMICRO (45%), SIGPLAN (5%) and IEEE TCARCH (50%).
SIGMICRO is establishing an industry-academia link and is encouraging donations of machine resources from the industry to researchers worldwide, through the Internet. We received donations from HP and IBM, made IA-63 and S/390 machines available to community in December 2001 and have 17 sponsored research projects worldwide.
Through a mailing to the membership in 2000, we asked for volunteers for creating a new Web site, formed a steering committee, and recruited talented students. The web site includes free access worldwide over the internet to interesting industry machine resources (IA-64, S/390) and serves as a portal for computer microarchitecture research, architecture education, and industry literature resources, and as a place for graduate students to publicize their thesis research.
SIGMICRO's other goals include continuing the CD-ROM architecture anthology project in cooperation with SIGARCH and to consider starting an e-newsletter.
SIGMICRO financial concerns have been the decline in fund balance due to the ACM allocation increase and MICRO-33, which did not turn in a surplus, even though the conference had a total of 378 attendees. Our finance actions were to convince the MICRO Steering Committee to put MICRO back on a profitable track, initiate two new conferences, send members a CD-ROM instead of a hard copy for MICRO proceedings next year, and apply for temporary SGB EC Small SIG support for projects, during the recovery period.
SIGMICRO's goals are to continue quality improvements to the MICRO conference series, to become a Web resource, for teaching and research fields related to microarchitecture, to establish new student awards, to foster interest in leading edge microarchitecture research and to provide computing research resources to microarchitecture researchers worldwide, with the help of the industry.
Motion: Move that SIGMICRO continue in its current status as a conference SIG for the next two years.
6.3 - SIGPLAN
Hans Boehm, SIGPLAN Chair, presented the program review.
The following information was taken from the written report he presented to the SIGs. The primary mission of ACM/SIGPLAN is to explore programming language concepts and tools focusing on design, implementation and efficient use.
SIGPLAN continues to actively sponsor many conferences and workshops. SIGPLAN sponsors six annual conferences, OOPSLA, POPL (with SIGACT), PLDI, ICFP, PPDP, GPCE (co-located with ICFP) and Java Grande/ISCOPE. SIGPLAN also sponsors PPoPP, which is held every two years. Other bi-annual conferences include ISMM and ASPLOS (with SIGARCH and SIGOPS). Of these conferences, PLDI, ASPLOS, POPL and PPoPP regularly appear in the Citeseer top 20 of 1200 Computer Science publication venues, based on their citation rates.
SIGPLAN continues to publish a newsletter "SIGPLAN Notices"(monthly) and "Fortran Forum" which is published three times a year.
SIGPLAN's financial situation continues to be strong in spite of a substantial loss for the OOPSLA 2001 conference. SIGPLAN's fund balance has allowed them to fund worthwhile programs. Although SIGPLAN is attempting to budget slightly more cautiously, we are assuming that the OOPSLA loss was mostly an occurrence that happened at the wrong time and place.
SIGPLAN's Awards/Scholarships include Programming Languages Achievement Award, SIGPLAN Distinguished Service Award, Most Influential Paper Awards, Doctoral Dissertation Award, OOPSLA Educator's Scholarships, and OOSPLA Housing Scholarships.
Some of SIGPLAN's other activities are:
- Professional Activities Committee (Funds student conference attendance)
- Professional registration and submission management -and->
- Special Projects (Support Proofs-as-Programs Summer School)
On the flip side, SIGPLAN's fund balance decreased by $760K last year. The reason for this was because SIGPLAN had to absorb a loss of $348K, from OOPSLA 2001. The conference deficit was obviously a major worry to both the Steering Committee and the SIGPLAN EC. That makes it very hard to deal with the long planning and early financial commitments required by OOPSLA. SIGPLAN's fund balance is such that this is not an immediate threat to SIGPLAN. However, SIGPLAN's financial circumstances continue to be resistant, in spite of a tangible loss from the OOPSLA 2001 conference.
Motion: Move that SIGPLAN continue in its current status as a multi-service SIG for the next 4 years.
7.0 - Best Practices Session Focusing on Student Activities
A best practices session was held so that SIG leaders could gain from the experiences of the each other. Leaders were encouraged to discuss both successful and unsuccessful programs.
SIGDA does an ample of amount of things for students. There are a wealth of activities worth concentrating on and sharing, such as:
- Scholarships for undergraduates and graduate students
- Mentoring Program at DAC
- University booth where people can show posters and give demonstrations, and enter a Student Design Contest
- Cadathalon at ICCAD Conference
- Ph.D. Dissertation Award in EDA
- New Faculty Award
SIGCSE has a doctoral consortium the day before the Symposium for people in various stages of their Ph.D. work. They talk about what they are doing and break up into groups with senior mentors. SIGCSE also gives advice to students on how to obtain their Ph.D.
Students who participate in the volunteer program for 3 hours receive free registration.
Student poster session is held in association with ACM's research program.
SIGGRAPH has a student volunteer program as well. Those who participate at least 20 - 35 hours receive free lodging and travel grants. The students seem to enjoy this because they get to network with researchers in their field of interest.
SIGGRAPH has a career fair. During this fair the students meet with counselors from the mentoring program in which they receive critical analysis of their work.
SIGGRAPH also gives travel grants.
SIGOPS gives their students travel grants for volunteering. One or two students are assigned to take notes of the discussion and afterwards their summary is published in the newsletter.
Students are often invited to a luncheon at a reserved table where they have the opportunity to network with researchers in their field of interest.
SIGAda offers students reduced conference and membership rates. Students are offered a grant for reporting duties for the on-site newsletter in which they receive free housing.
SIGARCH offers travel grants.
At the main architecture conference, the excursion is not included in the student registration. Some conferences have comp support for the excursion. When that is unavailable (comp support), SIGARCH will support it.
SIGARCH conference was held in New York City at Columbia University. In addition to the travel grants and paper awards, the students were given reserved dormitory rooms. Also, G. Silverman took on the position to obtain 12 free ACM memberships for student winners of the Best Student Paper and Best Student Presentation.
SIGSOFT offers a New Faculty Symposium to allow the students to network.
SIGMM has organized the collection of excursion tickets from people who wish not to attend. This allows students a chance to go.
SIGMM also has a Doctoral Program for juniors, seniors, faculty and researchers in their field. First year Assistant Professor runs the program.
8.0 - Other Business
8.1 - Next SGB Meeting
The next SGB Meeting will be held mid-March 2003.
8.2 - Other
There was no other business.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 PM
- Donna Baglio, Director ACM SIG Services
- Alan Berenbaum, SIGARCH Chair
- Hans Boehm, SIGPLAN Chair
- Robert Brown, SIGAPL Chair
- Alain Chesnais, SIGGRAPH Chair
- Susan Dumais, SIGIR Chair
- Kemal Ebcioglu, SIGMICRO Chair
- Hal Gabow, SIGACT Chair
- John Goldthwaite, SIGCAPH Chair
- Kathy Haramundanis, SIGDOC Chair
- Bruce Klein, SGB EC Member-at-Large
- David Kotz, SIGOPS Chair
- Keith Miller, SIGCAS Chair
- Elli Mylonas, SIGWEB Chair
- Maritza Nichols, ACM SIG Services
- Fred Niederman, SIGMIS Vice Chair
- Craig Partridge, SIGCOMM Chair
- Rob Paterson, SIGUCCS Chair
- Larry Rowe, SIGMM Chair
- Ravi Sandhu, SIGSAC Chair
- Kevin Schofield, SIGCHI Chair
- Janice Sipior, SIGMIS Chair
- Henry Walker, SIGCSE Chair
- Robert Walker, SIGDA Chair
- John White, ACM CEO
- Alex Wolf, SIGSOFT Chair