Computing Writer's Workshop Homework 2 On February 5, 2004, and in each of the meetings in the following weeks, we will operate as a writer's workshop. The goal of this process is to spread knowledge of good writing techniques, and to learn to be generous (both to others and to ourselves). (Thanks to Richard Gabriel, and his book on the writer's workshop for many ideas contained in this homework.) AS AN AUTHOR: You are required to present a work in progress of about 10 pages to the workshop. See the file `schedule.txt' for the schedule. If know in advance you can't finish your draft in time, it's your responsibility to trade with someone, at least two weeks before the meeting where your paper would be presented. Please tell Gary if you trade times like this. Bring one copy of your draft for each participant to the workshop meeting the week before your paper is to be reviewed. That is, your draft must be in our hands at the beginning of the meeting before we discuss it. Note that you will also be reading someone else's paper for that week, so don't wait until the last minute to start writing. The draft should be a work in progress; however, it should not be a very first draft. Rewrite it at least once, perhaps twice. It should be somewhat polished with respect to the English, so that we can give you comments on that. However, it should also be unfinished in the sense that you shouldn't spend lots and lots of time making many revisions. The idea is to get the workshop's feedback on the paper at an early stage. Spell check your paper. Please make absolutely sure that you have page numbers on your draft, as that helps us make comments. Either use double spacing or wide margins (at least 1.5 inches if you use single spacing). Your draft should be clearly marked as with the word "DRAFT" or "WORK IN PROGRESS" on each page (put it in the header or footer with the page numbers). The draft should include a short notation about who the intended audience is. This should be prominently marked on the first page. Describe the audience in terms that the other people in the workshop will understand, for example: "professors of computer science on my POS committee and outside members from anthropology and geology" or "the program committee of the SIGCSE conference". This will help us evaluate the reader's perspective on the work. When your paper is presented, you should be there and take notes. You will read the title and abstract. (Don't make the abstract more than 150 words, shorter is better.) However, you won't be able to talk during the process, except to ask for clarifications on the comments at the very end. At no time should you interrupt the discussion to defend your paper. You should take notes on the comments; use a copy of the paper to help you do that, but also have some blank paper. AS A READER: The most important thing you can do as a reader is to treat the author with respect. Consider the author as an expert in the subject area of the paper. Remember that your work will be read as well, and this isn't a competition. The author has given you a gift of their unfinished work, give the author your gift of your careful and helpful consideration of it. You have to carefully read the paper before the meeting, make comments on it, and prepare your report (see below). Use a green pen to make comments on the paper copy. Don't just focus on the technical content, but also pay as much, if not more, attention to how the paper is written. During the workshop meeting, we will use the following steps. 0. You will have read the paper carefully before the workshop, and have prepared your report on it (see below), and have printed two (2) copies of your report. The moderator will take one copy of your report as a way to take attendance. 1. The author will speak the name of the paper, and read the abstract. After this, the author will remain silent until step 5, acting as a "fly on the wall". 2. You and the others will summarize the paper and discuss the summaries. 3. You and the others will discuss the good points of the paper. 4. You and the others will discuss the things that could be improved. 5. The author will have a couple of minutes to ask us for clarifications of our comments, to make sure they are understood. (But the author is not to defend their paper at this point.) 6. The moderator will make a positive comment, and then we will thank the author with a round of applause. During the discussion, in steps 2-4, you should not direct your comments at the author. The focus is not on the author, but on the paper. During the discussion, in steps 3-4, we will focus on general comments about the paper. For example, things that are clear or confusing, claims that are valid or not, etc. We will certainly talk about the English. However, for details in the English editing we should mostly describe things about the English that were very common (good or bad) points of editing detail in the paper. For detailed editorial comments on the English, please mark your comments in the paper and give the marked up copy of the paper as a gift to the author. If there is some English problem that is very common in the paper (e.g., missing articles) don't mark all occurrences of the problem in the paper, but only the first several, and then make a note that it's a general problem. During the discussion, to speed things along, if you agree with the comments that someone else is making about the paper verbally, you can show your agreement by saying "Gush!" This is especially useful during the positive comments section. For each thing that could be improved, you should offer a suggestion for improvement. It's best not to just say that something is bad. Make your suggestions concrete, if you can. When you are reviewing papers by other authors in the workshop, each time you must fill out a report, using the form below. You must print your report, and make two (2) copies. At the end of the session when the paper is discussed, you will give one copy to the author, and the other to the workshop moderator. (You may get feedback from the moderator on it, sometimes.) --------------- cut here ------------------------- cut here ------------ 's Workshop Report on < paper title > by < author's name > * SUMMARY OF THE PAPER < Summarize the paper briefly in your own words. Be sure to describe the problem being solved and the main claims. However, do not put in any evaluation of how good or bad paper is here; that goes below. > * GOOD POINTS OF THE PAPER < This may be brief if the paper is bad, or even empty if the paper is very poor. However, you are highly encouraged to find something good in it, as that will help the author not to change what is good. Describe any claims you believe are justified and interesting. Give arguments to support your evaluations; these will help you remember what is good about the paper at the meeting. Here you can also comment on things you liked about the writing. Watch out for "damming with faint praise" in this section. To avoid that, don't use words like "but" in your comments in this section. > * HOW THE PAPER COULD BE IMPROVED < This may be brief if the paper is good, or even empty if the paper is very good. However, you are highly encouraged to find something that could be improved, as that will help the authors. Describe any claims that you believe are not justified and explain your reasons. If there is some related work missing, you should cite it in enough detail so that it can be checked. (Don't just say "I think there has been some work on this subject before.") >