Minutes of the October 22, 1999 SGB EC Conference Call

1) Review status of current action items -

The following action items were reported as completed:

Action: Cunningham to continue work on "Future of SDF" committee. Working with 2-3 SIG representatives he will put together a formal proposal to be presented at the next SGB meeting.

Action: Alternate SIG Model committee to put together formal guidelines and proposal with regard to Societies and discuss electronically with the SGB for presentation to Council in May. This is to be presented during next SGB meeting. Broken into two committees, Soffa heading societies and L. Johnson heading Model committee. (7/22/99)

Action: Notkin is to inform the SGB of the SGB EC decision to place SIGAPP in transition. He will also explain that the election result triggered this decision. (7/22/99)

Action: Furuta will discuss other needs, such as standard conference evaluation questions with Cassel for consideration of the committees she's chairing (8/24/99)

Action: Baglio to provide Notkin with 45 minute slot on agenda for program review discussion. (8/23/99)

Action: Cohoon will send e-mail to the SGB requesting nominations for the Computing Surveys Editor search committee. (8/23/99)

Action: Baglio to add Publications update to SGB agenda. The item will be led by Cohoon and will last for 10 minutes. (8/23/99)

Action: Cohoon to provide SGB with timeline on Editor searches during SGB Meeting. (8/23/99)

Action: Ellis to name committee member to SGB Nominations Committee.(10/1/99)

Action: Snodgrass to establish Portal Mgt. Board. (10/2/99)

2) Approval of minutes from February meeting -

Motion: Move to approve the minutes of the February '99 meeting.
Notkin, Cassel
unanimous

3) SIGGRAPH Requests -

Baer reported that on behalf of the SIGGRAPH Conference Advisory Group, John Fuji (Chair) requested a waiver to the ACM policy for contract selection for audio visual services for the annual SIGGRAPH conference. According to ACM policy, a complete Request For Proposal (RFP) process is required every three years. Based upon the current contractor's (AVW Audio Visual, Inc.) performance, they are requesting permission to explore a three year contract renegotiation without additional bids. Negotiations would be based upon a maximum 5% increase over current costs for work performed today.

Fuji provided the following support for their request: "AVW Audio Visual, Inc. (AVW) has served the SIGGRAPH Audio Visual contract since 1993. Their extensive support includes:

• provide all audio visual equipment, services, and labor for conference activities
• provide room layouts for all meeting rooms
• act as service provider for all exhibitor audio visual needs
• contact all contributors to coordinate their audio visual requirements
• produce speaker slides as requested for presentations
• staff audio visual and speaker preparation office on-site
• support walkie-talkie requirements

Current audio visual costs are based on an as-used basis and range from $500,000 - $700,000 annually.

In addition to the above services, SIGGRAPH would like to add the position of Technical Director services for the installation programs (Emerging Technologies and Art Gallery). This important role has been successfully served via separate contracts with AVW during the past two years in the amount of $30,000.

SIGGRAPH requests this waiver primarily as a result of AVW's excellent performance over the past six years. From attendee/contributor surveys and conference committee feedback, their services are held with the highest regard and requested by name for subsequent years. AVW's annual contractor performance evaluation reflects only the most positive reviews. In discussions with other associations, AVW is held in high esteem by the industry, especially for its dedication to continuous improvement.

Additionally, AVW also contributes extensive experience and corporate knowledge to future SIGGRAPH conference and planning processes. Due to the leading edge nature of contributor requests, we rely heavily upon our audio visual contractor for needs that actually set new standards for other technical conferences. AVW's experience and success in this area makes them a valuable resource to continue.

If ACM approves this request for waiver, SIGGRAPH will pursue renegotiation for audio visual services with AVW. Completion of a contract would be contingent upon (but not limited to):

• acceptance of certain existing contract terms (e.g., specification of key account personnel, service performance and termination clauses, insurance terms, required role responsibilities, etc.)
• review of terms and recommendation by the SIGGRAPH Conference Advisory Group
• full approval by the ACM SIGGRAPH Executive Committee
• authorization by required ACM signature"

Baer supported the request and asked the SGB to endorse which would enable Ellis to bring forth to the ACM EC for approval. Whitton explained to the SGB EC that the request was actually being made by the SIGGRAPH EC and the SIGGRAPH CAG. As required the CAG received approval to make the request from the SIGGRAPH EC prior to presenting to Baer.

The SGB EC endorsed the request and asked Ellis to bring to the ACM EC for approval.

Action: Ellis to bring the SIGGRAPH request for waiver (A/V contract) to the ACM EC for approval.

4) Publications Update -

Publications Advisor Cohoon reported that SIGDA had some complaints regarding the timing of transactions. he is pursuing with the publications board.

5) SIGMOBILE/SIGCOMM Update -

Conference Advisor Cassel reported that there were two issues concerning the leaders of SIGMOBILE and SIGCOMM

1. scheduling of this years conference
2. ongoing procedure to avoid submission conflicts

For this year, the leaders have decided to keep the dates of the conferences as proposed. They feel it is too late to make changes. By November 15th they intend to have a plan in place for a general policy for the future. They believe that by separating the dates for paper submittal and review they can work out the conflicts. Cassel will continue to work with them on this.

6) February Meeting Dates -

HQ Liaison Baglio proposed possible locations and dates in Atlanta, Denver and Dallas. The SGB EC decided that the weekend of February 4-6 in Atlanta would be most appropriate for the next set of meetings. These dates were chosen to avoid conflicts for several SIG leaders that must be at the meetings for review.

Action: Baglio will send an announcement to SIG Chairs that the next set of meetings will be held in Atlanta during the first weekend in February.

7) SDF Proposals ranked by SGB -

Baglio provided the SGB EC with a summary of rankings and comments from the SGB leaders that responded to the recently distributed SDF materials.

Motion: Move to approve Proposal #1: Pathways: Expanding the Pipeline for Women in Computer Science for $15,200.
Soffa, Cohoon
unanimous

The SGB EC had further discussion regarding proposal #2: ENIAC Programmers and their contributions to early programming and computing. They believed there were some questions that needed to be answered prior to moving ahead with an approval. It was suggested that funding be provided for $25K conditional on a) ACM being acknowledged in the short and long films and b) ACM having the right to place in the DL and use clips in other ACM activities.

Action: Soffa will follow-up with the proposers of proposal #2 regarding ENIAC Programmers and three contribution to early programming and computing. She will determine if the above conditions are acceptable to them prior to making a final decision on funding.

8) SDF Proposals received for October 15, 1999 deadline -

The SGB EC decided that the 2 latest proposals to the SDF should be forwarded to the SGB for consideration. they placed a suspension on the fund until the SPF is sorted out.

Action: Baglio to distribute the recent SDF submittals (10/99) to the SGB.

9) SGB EC Member Reports -

Soffa reported that the award approval mechanism was not working. Awards were coming in through MSJ, he was sending to Soffa to send to the SGB and there was some confusion in all of this. Soffa asked if an official motion was required from the SGB EC in order to move these ahead. It was decided that an official motion was not needed. Instead the following procedure should be followed:

1. SIG leadership proposes and approves an award and process
2. Award and process are forwarded to SIG PD for distribution to appropriate leadership
3. PD forwards to Awards Liaison (currently MSJ). PD provides Award Liaison with standard information on the SIG status (transitional/not transitional), type of SIG (conference, publication, multi-service) and financial status (award can be included in SIG budget in future, award will be endowed, etc.)
4. Awards Liaison reviews and verifies that proposal meets guidelines. If no, liaison works with leaders to make necessary changes. If yes, liaison forwards to VC (currently Soffa) to distribute to SGB and SGB EC for comment.
5. VC gives a one-week deadline for comments. Comments are forwarded to Awards Liaison.
6. If negative comments are received, Awards Liaison works with the SIG on changes and once comments are satisfied goes to the Awards Committee for official endorsement. If positive or no comments are received, the Awards Liaison goes to the Awards Committee for official endorsement.