Computing Writer's Workshop

			      Homework 2

There will be no class on Wednesday February 9, because I will be away
at a program committee meeting in Vienna.

On February 16, 2000, and in each of the meetings in the following
weeks, we will operate as follows. You or one of your classmates will
present a draft of a paper to the workshop.  You are required to present
one of your drafts to the workshop for this process.

We need to have a volunteer for each week a bit in advance of that
week.  First, we need a volunteer for February 23; if you are willing
to do that, please send me an e-mail.  At our meeting on February 16,
I will have a sign up sheet for the remaining slots in this semester.
So think about when you would like to present a paper.

When you are presenting a paper, please give a printout of your paper to
me by noon the day before the workshop meets, so copies can be made.

When you are reviewing papers by other authors in the workshop, each
time you should fill out a conference-style referee report.  You can
find the form in the homework directory of the web page for the course
in the file `form-conference.txt'.  It also appears below.  You must
print your report, and make two copies.  You will give one to the
author, and the other to me.

At the meeting of the workshop to discuss the paper, we will focus on
general comments about the paper.  Although the form below contains a
section for specific comments, I suggest that you do not use that
section but rather mark your comments in the paper and give your copy
of the paper to the author.  Also, you should delete the section on
"private comments for the program committee", as that is not
applicable to the workshop.

--------------- cut here ------------------------- cut here ------------

			   Referee's report
				  on
			   < paper title >
				  by
			  < authors' names >

* RECOMMENDATION

< This should be a short overall recommendation.  Your choices will be
  dictated conference program committee chair, but they may be something
  like the following (choose one and delete the others): >

 A: This paper should be accepted (advocate/accept).

 B: I am not opposed to accepting this paper, but will not be an advocate
    for it.

 C: I am not opposed rejecting this paper, but will not argue strongly
    against it.

 D: This paper should be rejected (detractor).


* EXPERTISE

< For a conference, you may not be reading a paper in an area in which
  you are an expert.  Often the program committee chair will require
  you to list your expertise.  If there's no explicit section like
  this, and you feel you are an outsider, then you should say that in
  your private comments to the program committee.  One common set of
  choices is the following (choose one and delete the others): >

  X:  I am an expert.
  Y:  I am knowledgeable in the area, though not an expert.
  Z:  I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed outsider.


* 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. >


* PRIVATE COMMENTS FOR THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE

< Usually there is a section for giving private comments to the
  program committee, things that will not be seen by the author.
  Usually this should be left blank, however you can use it to
  describe your relationship with the author, if you have one, or any
  biases you have.  As a general rule, do not put the main
  recommendations or criticisms here; the process works best if the
  author can see almost everything.  But nothing that would make it
  completely obvious who you are should be in other sections. >


* POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE PAPER

< This may be brief if the paper is bad.  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 program committee meeting. >


* NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF THE PAPER

< This may be brief if the paper is good. 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.") >


* SPECIFIC COMMENTS

< Page n, ... >