Minutes of the March 16, 2003 SGB Meeting

1.0 - Welcome and Introductions

The meeting began at 9:00 AM. Alan Berenbaum welcomed the attendees and each of the participants introduced themselves.

(Change in Agenda: Section 5 Subsection 5.3 becomes Subsection 5.0)

2.0 - Chartering of New SIGs

Bruce J Klein, SGB EC Chair for Operations presented this report.

Klein reported that the chartering of the Special Interest Group for Information Technology Education (SIGITE) would be granted based on the recent vote of the SGB. SIGITE will be an official ACM SIG beginning July 1, 2003.

The SIGBED proposal, in its 3rd Draft was included as back-up. SIGBED is intended to be a focal point within ACM for all aspects of embedded computing systems, including both software and hardware. The SGB EC will identify SIGs with potential overlap and discuss those issues with the appropriate SIG leaders. All leaders were asked to review the proposal and forward concerns to the SGB EC. Should there be no issues and with the endorsement of the overlap SIG leaders a request to formally charter will be sent to the SGB.

By the time a chartering request gets to the SGB level, the SGB EC has spent a great deal of time with both the group making the proposal and the SIG leaders that could have potential overlaps or problems. Klein reminded the group that the SGB is the final decision maker in chartering.

3.0 - Student Research Competition -

Ann Sobel, ACM SRC Committee Chair presented this report

Sobel reported that a new contest model for the student research competition has been implemented. There will be a minimum of four SIG based competitions held during the year but Microsoft does intend to increase that. Acceptable research topics are to be determined by the SIG conference venue. Leaders can consider taking existing structures and tailoring for their event. The contest should recognize outstanding graduate and undergraduate research. Support will be provided for student travel and prizes for 25 participants. Previous competitions have been held at the SIGCSE and the OOPSLA conference.

All SIG competition winners will be eligible for the grand finals round. Evaluations will be performed by SRC Committee members. Awards will be extended to winning students and their advisors at the annual ACM Awards Banquet (The students and advisors are supported in the grand round).

The SRC committee is actively looking for conference venues for September 2003 - March 2004. The contest may be integrated with existing conference student research programs. Each SIG should identify a champion to become the SRC chair for the conference. The competition structure and evaluation mechanisms will be provided.

Sobel encouraged those interested to contact her directly at [email protected].

Everyone wants to see this go to the next level. It is extremely important that SIGs supporting research conferences with excellent student representation take this seriously. Microsoft is very committed and wants to do even more. If the SIGs do not show they are interested in putting this forth, the SIGs jeopardize losing it. SRC would like to spread it around to a variety of SIGs and there are no geographic limitations. SIG leaders were encouraged to inform their conference leaders of this worthy student program.

4.0 - Membership Modeling

John White, ACM Executive Director presented this report

Recently SIGART changed from a full-service SIG to a conference only SIG. One SIGART member raised the issue that this change effectively 'strips' the SIGART membership of their voting rights without input from the membership.

In general, a change in SIG status is either proposed by the SIG leadership (as in the case of SIGART) or suggested by the SGB Executive Committee. Any change in status must be approved by the full SIG Governing Board (SGB). While SIGs that change from full-service status to conference-only status still have members, it is unnecessary to seek input from SIG members on issues related to leadership and direction of the SIG.

John White indicated that it is generally assumed that in considering a change of status for a SIG, the membership of the SIG has been advised of the proposed change and the reasons for it. The expectation is that if significant negative feedback is received from the SIGs members, the change will be reconsidered. If little or no feedback is received, the SGB will move ahead with consideration of the proposed change.

John encouraged the SGB Executive Committee to revisit this issue with the SGB and formalize the practice of ensuring SIG member input has been solicited when a change of status that would eliminate the right to vote is being considered.

The SGB decided that no formal action was required. The expectation for a SIG changing status is that the leaders will notify the SIG membership of the possibility and offer an opportunity for viable program plans to be presented by the membership to prevent a change.

Status Report of Membership Modeling Project

John White, ACM Executive Director presented this report

The Membership Modeling Project involved ACM staff and senior volunteers to look at the model(s) we used for membership and systematically develop, consider, and research potential changes.

The objective was to deal with a number of systemic issues that have developed over the years. These issues include:

Declining general ACM membership.
Declining SIG membership.
Significant numbers of individuals associated with ACM without any form of membership (i.e., Student, Professional, and SIG Chapters).
A value proposition for membership in ACM that is neither compelling nor clear.
A complicated and out-dated collection of benefits for different membership categories.
A sense the ACM offers as an association (as distinct from specific products or SIGs) is middle of the road.

The goal was to develop a model of ACM membership that more directly met the needs of members and potential members by presenting a strong value proposition and, thus, a compelling reason to join the Association.

In February 2002, preliminary discussions were held with the ACM Council and with the SIG Governing Board on the need to initiate work on ACM's membership model. The Executive Committee and the Membership Activities Board had raised and discussed the issue in the past. The SIGs were discussing the issue of declining membership. ACM headquarters senior staff was anxious to re-think membership models in light of many new products and services introduced in the past few years. Finally, focus groups run during FY '02 indicated a real problem in how members and non-members perceived the value of ACM vs. the value of specific products and services.

Following the February meeting, the larger goals and mission of the ACM were reviewed to provide context for potential work on membership models. In particular, the results of two previous Council retreats (Portland 1994 and Lansdowne 1997) were reviewed.

With this background, ACM senior staff took the issues outlined in Section 1 and the current state of ACM as outlined above and held discussion with three outside consultants: Paul Hase of Hase, Schannen Research (Princeton) and Eileen Shapiro and Leon Sandler of the Hillcrest Group (Boston). Based on these discussions, a project was outlined to assess ACM, develop, and vet proposed changes. The proposed project comprised three steps:

Step 1 - Developing Options
A workshop to look at the current state of ACM (mission, goals, constituencies, products, services, business models) and to develop models, solutions, and changes that ACM should consider aimed at dealing with the issues outlined in Section 1. Participants would include select senior staff, the Chair of the Membership Activities Board, and the Chair of the SIG Governing Board.

Step 2 - Market Research
Based on the proposals developed in Step 1, conduct both qualitative and quantitative market research: 1) to further refine, inform, and improve options; and 2) to assess the impact of various options on dealing with the issues outlined in Section 1.

Step 3 - Implementation
Based on the market research conducted in Step 2, select specific models/solutions for implementation. Develop and execute an implementation plan to effect real change within ACM.

The project was discussed with ACM 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 the Council would be involved in assessing the results of that research and selecting models/solutions for implementation.

A workshop as outlined in Step 1 was held on June 11-12, 2002 at ACM Headquarters. Participating was: (staff) John White, Pat Ryan, Lillian Israel, Mark Mandelbaum, Wayne Graves, and Jim Maurer; (MAB Chair) David Arnold; and (SGB Chair) Alain Chesnais (via phone). The workshop was preceded by significant data collection that was reviewed by all participants and the three consultants prior to the meeting.

As discussed at the September meeting, the workshop resulted in a proposed new model for professional membership. The new model had three membership options, with each option building on the former.

E-Membership: a lightweight, electronic-only relationship with ACM that includes electronic services but no publications
Path Membership: a fuller membership (electronic services, publications, and membership in one SIG) but with a specific technical focus on one of ten or so technical paths. A technical path comprises a set of related SIGs, SIG publications, ACM publications, Digital-Library/Portal slice, and Professional Development Centre slice. While there is more work to do in defining Technical Paths, it is important to note that we do not see them as mutually exclusive. A SIG, conference, and/or publication could exist in more than on path.
Core Membership: a fuller membership still that includes a Path Membership plus an association-wide publication (CACM or Outlook), full access to all PD courses, etc.

The above model was seen as potentially meeting the needs of: those who want a lightweight, non-technically-specific relationship with ACM (e-membership); those who want a technically focused (and thus more relevant) membership in ACM (Path Membership); and those who want a more general relationship with ACM and the field (Core Membership). The essential difference here is being able to view ACM as an organization defined by a set of activities (publications, conferences, and communities) organized around a smallish number of major, technical areas.

We felt the above represented a significant change in how to view ACM and how to relate/belong to ACM. Furthermore, we felt that new models for student and institutional membership should be based on a sound model of professional membership. Thus, rather than doing a similar group exercise to develop new student and institutional membership models, we felt it important to flesh-out this new model of professional membership and do some preliminary research to see if we indeed had something on which to base further work.

Post-Workshop Activities (Step 1)

Following the June workshop, Paul Hase conducted a qualitative assessment of the proposed model in a carefully structured set of interviews. The results of this assessment were discussed in September and showed that:

Participants felt a change would be better than staying with the status quo.
Participants liked the idea of having options for ACM membership.
Participants felt the concept of a Technical Path Membership would meet the needs of many members and potential members
There was concern over pricing - with a definite $100 barrier
Restricting choices to predefined Path definitions might be too restrictive

At the September meetings, there was general support for the new model, but several concerns were surfaced:

Providing a free SIG membership could lead to a sense of competition among SIGs.
Are we undermining the sense of community by including SIG membership in ACM membership?
The assignment of SIGs, conferences, and publications to Paths needs to be improved.
What are the core services for each option?
What would add to the sense of people feeling they belong to ACM?
Can we do this without a negative financial impact?
"Roll your own society" appealing but might worsen the ACM identity crisis.
What is the ACM identity crisis?
Have we looked at other societies?
What do we want to be?

A second workshop was held in October to refine the model and address these issues. Participating was John White, Pat Ryan, Lillian Israel, Russ Shackelford, Mark Scott Johnson, Elli Mylonas, Alain Chesnais, and David Arnold. The result of this workshop was a revised multi-option professional membership model. With the following key changes:

The strict hierarchy was eliminated.
The status and services were clarified and simplified.
The Technical Path option was modified to include the choice of two SIGs.
The assignment of SIGs and other collaterals to Technical Paths was improved.

In the revised model, there were four options -

E-services Affiliate Membership
Professional Membership
- Classic
- E-Classic
- Technically Focused

With this, new version of the multi-option model, Paul Hase was engaged to design and carry out a significant survey to assess reaction to the model. The survey was conducted among three distinct groups:

Members (with and without SIGs, publications, DL)
Lapsed Members
Non Members (both affiliates and unaffiliated)

The goal of the survey was to assess:

The likelihood of renewing (or joining) with the current membership model.
Which option would be chosen if the new multi-option model was adopted?
The likelihood of renewing (or joining) with the new multi-option model.
Overall reaction to the new the multi-option model vs. the current model

The results of the market research will be discussed in detail at our meeting; however, the main messages are:

Members and non-members like the multi-option model, with non-members having a slightly higher preference for electronic options.
But there is no significant impact on the likelihood of existing members renewing, lapsed members rejoining, or non-members joining for the first time with the new multi-option model vs. the current model.

The survey thus seems to clearly indicate that despite a preference for options, there is little likelihood of improving ACM membership with the new model. Moreover, there is a significant negative financial impact if the multi-option model was adopted and the predictions of the survey carried throughout the membership.

The SGB thanked White for the report.

5.0 - SGB EC Reports

During the last SGB meeting, Berenbaum appointed a committee; Niederman, Partridge, R. Walker and Baglio to make a recommendation on the DL revenue sharing. Partridge reported and reminded SIG leaders that a fixed part of the DL profits are returned to the SIGs. None of the money has been disbursed at this point. There is close to $1M to be returned through FY'03 and another $600K expected in '04. The SIGs have been unable to decide how to divide this money. Partridge, Walker, Neiderman and Baglio were named to a task force to make a recommendation.

They considered the many pieces including: proceedings, journals, unassigned monies, free downloads, new SIGs. In February 2000 the SIG leaders decided to take the total and split it with half going to the SIGs and half going to good works. The SGB never made a decision about how the money going to the SIGs would be split or how the money going to good works would be distributed. The task force recommended reversing the decision to split the money and suggested distributing it all to the SIGS. Partridge tried various approaches (straight proportion, capping the max and boosting the minimum). Proportioning by download looked best. A spreadsheet was included as part of the back-up and provided a summary of each. Proceedings downloads for co-sponsored conferences were allocated evenly among sponsoring SIGs. In the final form it will be proportional to sponsorship risk.

Although the task force realized that some SIGs have close association with journals and magazines it was simpler not to include them when looking at the downloads. There are some conferences that the group could not associate with a SIG or the SIG no longer exists. The group could decide to give this money to the SPF. Originally the task force believed that the unassigned money should go to new SIGs but after considering their reduced allocation and seed funding they decided against this recommendation. Some SIGs offer their publications free to the world. The SGB may want to consider taking that information into account when proportioning.

Motion: Annually Distribute the SIG DL money directly to the SIGs in proportion to their respective downloads of newsletter and conference proceedings over the preceding fiscal year. For conferences with multiple ACM SIG sponsorship, downloads are subdivided according to financial risk taken in the most recent instance of the conference.
(Partridge, R. Walker)
Passed

Motion: "Unassigned Money" to be divided equally among the SIGS
(Partridge, Schofield)
Passed

Some members of the SGB felt strongly that journal and magazine downloads should be included in the calculation and asked that a task force be formed to look at that issue and make a recommendation.

Action: Berenbaum to form task force to review the issue of journal and magazine downloads being included in the DL return formula.

5.1 - ACM Allocation Update (Alain Chesnais)

Setting the context

What is the SIG allocation?
What is it for?
How is it calculated?
Why look at it?
A "tax" levied on all SIGs.
Helps pay costs of SIGs doing business.
Today: based on expenses.
It has been in place for 3 years

What services does the allocation cover?

General Office
Financial Services
Information Services
Conference Processing
Conference Site and Facility Activities
Conference Publicity Coordination
Conference Proceedings Production
Conference Financial and Other Activities
Newsletter Production
Electronic Service Activities
SIG Services Activities

Allocation Calculation

Allocation based on expenses, not revenue
Minimum contribution of $15K (actual cost estimated at $41K)
Variable rate per $125K
Start at 16%
Decrease by 0.8% every $125K
Minimum of 5.35%

How does this work?

amount	percentage	assessment	total expenses	total assessment
125,000	16.00%	20,000	125,000	20,000
125,000	15.20%	19,000	250,000	39,000
125,000	14.40%	18,000	375,000	57,000
125,000	13.60%	17,000	500,000	74,000
125,000	12.80%	16,000	625,000	90,000
125,000	12.00%	15,000	750,000	105,000
125,000	11.20%	14,000	875,000	119,000
125,000	10.40%	13,000	1,000,000	132,000
125,000	9.60%	12,000	1,125,000	144,000
125,000	8.80%	11,000	1,250,000	155,000
125,000	8.00%	10,000	1,375,000	165,000
125,000	7.20%	9,000	1,500,000	174,000
125,000	6.40%	8,000	1,625,000	182,000
125,000	5.60%	7,000	1,750,000	189,000
125,000	5.35%	6,688	1,875,000	195,688
125,000	5.35%	6,688	2,000,000	202,375
for example:
9,300,000	more at 5.35%:	497,550	11,300,000	699,925

Chesnais explained that as requested he reviewed the allocation and the concept of an expense based formula is still the best way to handle this. The problem is that the current formula will not cover the allocation in this fiscal year or next. The SGB leaders suggested increasing the starting point 17% and were readying a motion however, with the expenses of the SIGs going down to offset revenue losses there was not guarantee that 17% was the right number. The SIG leaders requested that a task force be put together to determine what the correct number would be and make a recommendation for approval. The task force was also asked to look at the long term allocation on the SIGs that were paying the minimum to determine if there was anything that needed to be done to keep them viable.

Action: Berenbaum to appoint task force with Alain Chesnais as leader to review allocation starting point of 16% and recommend what that number needed to be to cover the allocation. In addition they should look at the effect the allocation is having on the small SIGs having difficulty with the minimum and make a recommendation.

5.2 - Publications Advisor Report (Ozsu)

Ozsu reported that as the publications advisor it is his job to bring forth issues from the publications board to the SGB and vice versa.

There are philosophical issues as to what the Digital Library should contain. This is something that all leaders of ACM should be looking at.

Another issue is the production of conference proceedings. Fifty-seven conference proceedings out of eighty-three use ACM's recommended production service. That means that not all proceedings are being captured in a standard preferred way. When the production service is not employed and the customary template not used it is impossible to maintain a common appearance. It is important to use the standard template and all SGB are asked to encourage their conference leaders to do so. The SIGs need to work on workflow to get the appropriate information to ACM in a timely manner.

Action: Berenbaum to identify task force members to make recommendations on DL content.

Action: Baglio to send Ozsu list of conferences not using the Sheridan Service.

5.3 - Small SIG Project Fund (Katherine Haramundanis)

Haramundanis reported that $68K has been distributed from the $100K Small SIG Project Fund established by the SGB to help small SIGs cope with the financial pressures of the allocation.

SIGCAS $15K for on-line newsletter
SIGSAM $ up to $18K for conference support
SIGMIS/CPR has $15K to off set their merger
SIGMICRO has $20K in support for a number of initiatives

5.4 - SGB Elections (Alain Chesnais)

Alain is working on the slate and hopes to finalize shortly.

6.0 - Program Reviews

6.1 - SIGMIS (Janice Sipior - SIG Chair)

Sipior explained that the mission of SIGMIS concentrated on information systems and technologies for management and the management of these systems and technologies. The group was founded in 1961 as the Special Interest Group on Business Data Processing and later became known as the Special Interest Group on Business Information Technology. The SIG further improved its identity as the Special Interest Group on Management Information.

SIGMIS publishes a quarterly newsletter (journal) called Data Base devoted to communicating advances in research & best practice in MIS. The publication was established in 1961, is highly regarded and sent to more than 1,300 subscribers, including 200 libraries worldwide. It is listed in Science Citation Index, Journal Citations Report.

The Data Base editorial Offices are located at Baylor University. Co-Editors for the publication are Dr. Wynne Chin, Associate Professor, University of Houston and Dr. Dorothy Leidner, Professsor, Baylor University.

The group recently formed a new Editorial Board and has published special issues dedicated to CPR since the merger of SIGMIS and SIGCPR in 2002.

SIGMIS sponsors the CPR Annual Conference since the SIGMIS/SIGCPR merger in 2002. SIGMIS is a 50% co-sponsor of the Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) and initiated a KM Track Chair in 2002. The group also actively supports the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), and the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).

In 1995 SIGMIS became the sponsor of the ICIS Doctoral Dissertation Award.

SIGMIS leaders joined representatives of the Association for Information Technology Professionals (AITP) and the Association for Information Systems (AIS) in the continued development of: IS2002, Model Curriculum and Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Information Systems Published in Data Base, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2003.

ACM and IEEE Computing Society are founders of FOCUS, the Federation on Computing, United States continue to fund the attendance of ACM's representative for one of the annual meetings.

The expenses of SIGMIS have increased to bring Data Base up to date and to produce & distribute CIKM proceedings. The Fund balance has decreased as a result:

FY 1999		$131,845
FY 2000		$125,630
FY 2001		$106,610
FY 2002		$64,913
Jan. '03		$63,264

Membership has been a concern for SIGMIS leaders for many years. There are currently 748 members (as of Jan'03). The group averages a 10% decline per year. The leaders have plans to catch them early by providing a 1-yr membership for ICIS, ECIS annual doctoral student consortia. They intend to promote a closer community, especially to provide cohesiveness between SIGMIS and CPR.

The leadership of SIGMIS continues to bring together the SIGMIS specialty with the CPR group. All officers of the SIG extended their terms to allow the SIG to continue this. They intend to expand the "officer" discussion list. They will hold brainstorming sessions to discuss increasing revenue, seeking advertisers for Data Base, reducing expenses, cultivating leaders and plan to introduce a new generation of leaders to "entry-level" tasks.

Motion: The SGB supports the recommendation of the SGB EC to continue SIGMIS as a multi-service SIG for the next 4 years.
(Chesnais, Haramundanis)
unanimous

6.2 - SIGSIM (John Tufarolo - SIG Vice Chair)

SIGSIM is a conference-only SIG. The mission of SIGSIM is to advance the state-of-the-art in simulation and modeling through world-wide membership of cross-disciplinary professionals. The group does this by supporting premiere conferences, supporting web-based services and providing members access to portion of digital library content.

SIGSIM co-sponsored conferences include:

The Winter Simulation Conference, the premiere discrete event simulation conference in the world with an attendance of 600 people.
The Parallel and Distributed Simulation Workshop, the leading parallel simulation workshop with an attendance of 50 people.

SIGSIM electronic community services include: the SIGSIM web site, a distribution list ([email protected]), USENET News Group (comp.simulation).

SIGSIM member offerings include an educational program (Distinguished Lecture Series). This on-line lecture series includes historic and leading-edge material and multimedia presentations. It is hosted on SIGSIM web site (members only) and geared to attract students. Three have been completed. SIGSIM also offers their members access to SIGSIM materials in the ACM Digital Library.

The biggest issues for SIGSIM are their fund balance depletion and the need to energize the membership and the leadership. Tufarolo explained that the minimum allocation requirements are a financial drain on the SIG. The 2 conferences that SIGSIM co-sponsors cannot bring in the necessary requirement. Since that is their only stream of revenue the SIG will continue to have financial problems.

The earlier discussion on DL revenue sharing will offset some of the financial problems. They will look at the anticipated DL revenue for the future and include that when budgeting. The leadership still believes a min $15K cost is damaging to small SIGS like SIGSIM.

The future goals of SIGSIM are to help solve the allocation expense issue, continue to support leading simulation conferences, identify a new chair and other officers, improve communications between ACM to SIG leaders Include all officers on communications, not just the chair, advertise value of SIGSIM and learn how to better serve the membership.

Motion: The SGB supports the recommendation of the SGB EC to continue SIGSIM as a conference-only SIG for the next two years.
(Ozsu, Ebcioglu)
Unanimous

6.3 - SIGWeb (Elli Mylonas - SIG Chair)

SIGWEB focuses on hypertext and hypermedia and web research in information and system architecture linking, rhetoric, interface primarily web, but also stand alone systems. The SIG has a strong creative and scholarly presence.

The SIG was originally called SIGLink but changed its name to SIGWeb in 1999 while Marc Nanard was Chair. The SIG sponsors a highly regarded conference, alternating between US and Europe. The group always had newsletter difficulties, but caught up in 1997. They again started having newletter troubles in 1999 and they continue. As a result the SIG was named a conference-only SIG in 2002. This provided the leadership an opportunity to take stock and focus on their strength. The conferences continue to be highly regarded, intense experiences.

The membership of SIGWEB is growing and they have good member retention. Their finances are strong due to successful conferences and overall they are a healthy SIG.

The SIG members are missing Volumes 9 - 11 of the newsletter. V 9 (2000) is now complete. The obligation for 11 ( 2002 ) was discharged by sending proceedings and the obligation for 10 ( 2001 ) will be discharged when they issue a CD ROM with recent proceedings.

Conference activity includes HT since 1987 ( 100% )
Workshops Open Hypermedia, Structural Computing, AH, Spatial Hypertext, Writers Workshop
DL, JCDL since 2001 ( 50% then 30% )
WWW, Hypermedia track (not this last year). Strong presence, nevertheless
Several in-cooperation events
New: DocEng ( 100%, in negotiation )

SIGWEB awards include the Engelbart Award for Best Paper (HT), the Nelson Award for Best Newcomer Paper (HT), the Bush Award for Best Paper (DL, JCDL) and the informal �.. Bernie (HT). Other Activities of SIGWeb include a SIGWeb course directory on the website and HyNic - DL for HT documents.

In the future the leadership plans to spend some money to support their programs, work on the website and use and work with awards to promote the SIG and conferences. SIGWEB will resume some publishing on their website where they'll provide conference reports that are not published elsewhere, workshop reports and Wiki / collaborative space. They need to develop new officers.

SIGWEB is supported by a small, dedicated group of people not bolstered by single CS discipline, especially in US. There are few volunteers and lots of competition in non-CS areas and the WWW community but the leaders are noticing renewed interest.

Motion: The SGB supports the recommendation of the SGB EC to have SIGWEB remain in transition.
Unanimous

7.0 - SGB EC Recommendations on SIGs in Transition (Hal Gabow)

7.1 - SIGAPP

The SGB EC thanks Gary Lamont, SIGAPP Chair, for keeping us informed on SAC activities. The SGB EC recommends that SIGAPP remain in transition. SIGAPP should provide a plan for volunteer development and a recommendation for the new SIG Chair. This should be communicated to Alan Berenbaum by May 31st. When this is approved, the Chair can appoint the rest of the SIGAPP Executive Committee. The Chair will present a report on SIGAPP to the SGB EC at the next SGB meeting.

Motion: The SGB supports the recommendation of the SGB EC to continue SIGAPP's transitional status.
(R. Walker, Chesnais)
unanimous

7.2 - SIGAPL (no longer in transition)

The SGB EC thanks SIGAPL Chair Bob Brown for bringing the SIG's newsletter issues up to date. SIGAPL is now a conference SIG and is no longer in transition. The SGB EC appoints Bob Brown as SIGAPL Chair. A viability review of the SIG will occur in 2 years

Motion: The SGB supports the recommendation of the SGB EC to continue SIGAPL as a non-transitional conference only SIG.
(Haramundanis, Ozsu)
unanimous

7.3 - SIGCAPH

The SGB EC thanks John Goldthwaite, SIGCAPH Chair for his efforts to revitalize SIGCAPH. The SGB EC recommends that SIGCAPH remain in transition. A report should be presented to the SGB EC at the next SGB meeting. The report should include the progress on making up the back newsletter issues, and also a final decision on whether or not SIGCAPH will switch to conference-only SIG status. The SGB EC will then make a recommendation on transition or changing of status. In addition, the EC advises SIGCAPH to issue a letter to the membership informing them of the newsletter status and the direction the SIG will be taking.

Motion: The SGB supports the recommendation of the SGB EC to continue SIGCAPH's transitional status.
(Ozsu, Schofield)
unanimous

7.4 - SIGGROUP

The SGB EC appreciates the efforts of Wolfgang Prinz to reorganize SIGGROUP and bring it out of transition. The SGB EC will take SIGGROUP out of transition allowing them to conduct an election, once a full slate of candidates has been submitted. The slate must be communicated to Alan Berenbaum by May 31st. The SGB EC appoints Wolfgang Prinz acting Chair until the election is completed. The SIG Chair will present an update on the proposed SIGGROUP activities (conferences, bulletin, Kluwer journal, awards) to the SGB EC at the next meeting SGB meeting.

Motion: The SGB supports the recommendation of the SGB EC to continue SIGGROUP's transitional status.
(Ebcioglu, Chesnais)

7.5 - SIGWEB

The SGB EC thanks Elli Mylonas, SIGWEB Chair for her efforts to revitalize SIGWEB. The SGB EC recommends that SIGWEB remain in transition. A report will be presented to the SGB EC at the next SGB meeting. The report should include the progress on making up the back newsletter issues, and also an update on other SIG activities. The SGB EC will make a recommendation on transition or changing of status. In addition, a letter should be sent to the membership informing them of the newsletter status and the plans for SIGWEB.

Motion: The SGB supports the recommendation of the SGB EC to continue SIGWEB's transitional status.
(Haramundanis, R. Walker)
unanimous

8.0 - In-Cooperation Criteria (Joseph Marks)

Proposed new policy: A conference should not be given in-cooperation status if it will not or cannot make its proceedings available for the ACM DL

Con:

SIG members will lose the reduced registration rate for that conference
The "family" of ACM-supported conferences may shrink

Pro:

The proposal will strengthen the ACM DL by increasing its holdings
SIG members will have easier access to the conference proceedings
SIGs may benefit from increased DL allocations
Unifies our approach to sponsored and in-cooperation conferences:
Assuming this is already a de-facto policy for ACM-sponsored conferences!

This proposal had mixed reviews. Some SGB members were concerned that they'd lose their cooperating events by making such a demand and others were already implementing it. The SGB leaders decided that each SIG should decide this and approve cooperating events based on that decision rather than an imposed policy.

Motion: A conference should not be given in-cooperation status if it will not or cannot make its published output available to the ACM Digital Library, without a waiver from the SGB EC
(Marks, Partridge)
Motion rejected

9.0 - Worst and Best Practices Session (all)

Presented by A. Berenbaum

A best and worst 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.

Best

To always, require senior authors to register

Worst

Asking authors to register multiple times if they had multiple papers accepted. This is double charging and is considered an unacceptable practice by ACM.
Changing SIG status without seeking input from SIG members on issues related to leadership and direction of the SIG.
Handing over the control of complimentary registration to a conference general chair.
Allowing the conference general chair to submit a paper.
Comping the conference general chair. All participants of a conference should pay for their registration in support of the conference, SIG, community and the field.

10.0 - Other Business

No other business was discussed.

Meeting adjourned at 4:15 PM
(Berenbaum,Klein)

Participants:

Donna Baglio, ACM Director of SIGs Services
Alan Berenbaum, SIGARCH Chair and SGB EC
Hans Boehm, SIGPLAN Chair
Robert Brown, SIGAPL Chair
Alain Chesnais, SIGGRAPH Chair and SGB EC
Susan Dumais, SIGIR Chair
Derek Eager, SIGMETRICS Chair
Kemal Ebcioglu, SIGMICRO Chair
Jennifer Fajman, SIGUCCS Past Chair
Stuart Feldman, SIGecom Chair and SGB Council Rep
John Goldthwaite, SIGCAPH Chair
Katherine Haramundanis, SIGDOC and SGB EC
David Harrison, SIGAda Vice Chair
Mark Scott Johnson, SGB Council Rep
Bruce J Klein, SGB EC
David Kotz, SIGOPS Chair
Joseph Marks, SIGART Chair
Keith Miller, SIGCAS Vice Chair
Elli Mylonas, SIGWEB
Maritza Nichols, ACM SIGs Services
Fred Niederman, SGB EC
Tamer Ozsu, SIGMOD Chair and SGB EC
Craig Partridge, SIGCOMM Chair
Larry Rowe. SIGMM Chair
Pat Ryan, ACM Chief Operating Officer
Kevin Schofield, SIGCHI Chair
Janice Sipior, SIGMIS Chair
Ann Sobel, SRC Chair
John Tufarolo, SIGSIM Vice Chair
Robert Walker, SIGDA Chair and SGB EC
John White, ACM Executive Director
Alexander Wolf, SIGSOFT Chair