Dear ACs. Thanks again for volunteering. Our previous note to you sent you instructions on how to do several things. Here are some things that came up since then, usually by problems or clarifications requested by you as ACs.

1. Travel / hotel.

You should think about booking travel to the conference, especially if you want to get cost-effective tickets. Except in a very few cases, you are expected to cover the cost of travel (again, thanks for this!).

Action item.

2. Choosing Reviewers.

The reviewers pool listed on PCS is just a resource, and it is likely out of date (we have NOT asked people to volunteer for the database, so the systems view of who has signed up to volunteer this year means little).

Essentially, you decide through whatever means at your disposal who the good reviewers should be. Use your own knowledge, citations in the paper, the web, google, your looking at past authors of conferences, etc. to help you make the best decision you can on who to ask. Try to get variety - if you ask the three top people in the area, you are likely to get a no from some of them (they will be asked by everyone else). Its ok to sprinkly your review request with 'younger' but still highly capable researchers. The bottom line is: get good, appropriate reviewers by whatever means you can (you may be asked at the PC meeting why you chose that person).

3. Problem papers.

Some problems are being reported with the odd submission, as indicated below.

Paper not anonymized. Send the paper number to . We will anonymize it. While we could reject it out of hand, we are being fairly liberal this year. But do this asap, as reviewers should NOT see the non-anonymized paper.

Papers in incorrect format. Let the little things slide. But if its wildly out, or is a blatent attempt to ‘cheat’ the page limit, let us know at and we will make a decision on it.

Papers over length. Anything 4 pages and under is a note. Anything that is 5 – 10 pages is a full paper. Anything over 10 pages is a problem. But use your judgement. If it’s a couple of lines over (or if there is only modest cheating on reducing space by (say) removing title areas, copyright boxes etc, let it slide. If its blatant, then let us know:

PDF problems. We have checked most papers, but if you can’t see the PDF, let us know.

4.How to exchange papers.

A few of you have asked for clarification on the paper exchange process (e.g., if you are in conflict). While the method was outlined in previous instructions, here it is in more detail.

To give back a paper.

To get a new paper (to replace the one you gave in).

5. Your Immediate Work schedule

A word of advice. Everyone is now trying to find reviewers. Usually, reviewers say yes to the first bunch, but then start saying no. We strongly advise you to start getting reviewers immediately. You will get some nos and lots of yeses if you do. If you wait, you will have to deal with lots of nos.. .no fun for anyone!

6. Assigning 2nd ACs

2nd ACs will be handled later in this process (starting 11/5). 2nd ACs will only be assigned for those papers that end up being in either the discussion or accept range. Outright rejects will not have a 2nd AC.

When you do assign 2nd ACs, they MUST be a member of your sub-committee. Do not assign 2nd ACS outside your subcommittee, as we want them to be in the same room as you during discussions.

7. ACs as Reviewers

As an AC, it may be tempting to choose another AC or sub-committee chair (in your committee or another one) to review a paper. Try to avoid this - ACs and SCs already have a significant work load.

If you get a request to review a paper as an AC or SC, its entirely up to you as to whether you want to review it. You certainly have an excuse to turn it down.

8. Subcommittee-Specific Views on Pool of Submissions Without a Coordinator

Update: Subcommittee specific views have now been added to the "Pool of Submissions Without a Coordinator" view (where you go to find papers to swap with). Everyone should apply the view that is specific to the subcommittee they are on. You do this using the pull-down box at the top-left just under the CHI 2009 logo. This will say "Default view" by default. Change that to indicate your subcommittee. Also please double check that if you have taken papers from this "swap pool" that they are in fact only from your own subcommittee.

9. Seeing who is on the committee.

Several people have asked if there is a way to tell in the system if someone is on the committee (so you don't accidentally ask them to review).

Yes you can, but it is more obscure than we might like. Here is what you do: on the "Manage Reviewers" page where you assign reviewers to papers, if you press "Search" instead of "Assign" the display that comes up for matches will contain an "On Cmte" field. If this is not blank they are on the committee.

We have also compiled a list of all Subcommittee Chairs and ACs in this document.

10. Update on PCS: listing volunteer reviewer matches

Yesterday there was apparently a bug in the system and all match scores between papers and reviewers in the volunteer pool were being computed as zero. This has been fixed so that you can now get these matches if you really want them.

Thanks again. We certainly know the amount of work involved in this, and truly appreciate your contribution to the community. Enjoy! Saul Greenberg and Scott Hudson Papers co-Chairs.