Mea Culpa and Good News

Paul Beame has asked me to post the following message:

I apologize profusely for the consternation that my e-mail to you has caused to you, to members of the SoCG and SIGACT community and to ACM.  I had not discussed our prior plans about co-location of SoCG and STOC with the ACM leadership and this was serious mistake.  It has been clarified that the original concerns from ACM leadership that I had misinterpreted and communicated to you, related only to direct financial support.  I interpreted this far too broadly and then compounded it with a badly worded e-mail to you.  Had I discussed our intended co-location with the ACM leadership, this problem would not have arisen.

As you and I discussed on Friday, SIGACT is very interested in co-location with SoCG and that even if formal co-location were not possible, we were interested in an informal co-location arrangement.  The good news is that contrary to my message, formal co-location of STOC and an independent SoCG is indeed an option and ACM staff will be ready to work with STOC on aspects of such arrangements!  There is a range of options on how this can work and I would like to continue to discuss them with you.

Needless to say, this is fantastic news!  I want to publicly thank Paul and the ACM leadership for quickly clearing up this unfortunate misunderstanding.

And so now, officially: SOCG 2016 will be collocated with STOC in Boston/Cambridge.

Advertisements

About Jeff Erickson

I'm a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and the chair of the steering committee for the International Symposium on Computational Geometry.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Mea Culpa and Good News

  1. Stefan Huber says:

    SOCG 2015 will be collocated with STOC 2015 in Boston/Cambridge.

    2016, right?

  2. Sure, 2016.
    Fantastic news, indeed!

  3. someone says:

    Looking forward to the co-location!

  4. Daniel Reem says:

    Regarding the post: indeed encouraging.

    I have a remark related to a different issue: the future name of the conference. Will there be any attempt to choose a new name? keeping the name “SoCG” sounds great, but previous discussions in this blog imply that there may be problems to do this in the future (however, it wasn’t sufficiently clear what is the severity of the problem and whether it is with the full name, the short name, or both). Below is a partial list of suggestions for possible short names and several suggestions for the full name which are scattered here and there in the posts and the comments:

    Short names:

    “SoCG” (or “SOCG”)
    “SoCG++”,
    “Open SoCG” ,
    “iSoCG”,
    “SOS”,

    Full names

    “Symposium on Computational Geometry”,
    “Independent Symposium on Computational Geometry”,
    “Libre Symposium on Computational Geometry”,
    “Independent Symposium on Computational Geometry and Topology”,
    “International Symposium on Computational Geometry and Topology”,
    “Symposium on Computational Geometry and Topology”,
    “Community Symposium on Computational Geometry”,
    “Citizen’s Symposium on Computational Geometry”,
    “Free Symposium on Computational Geometry”,
    “Public Symposium on Computational Geometry”,
    “Open Symposium on Computational Geometry”,
    “Original Symposium on Computational Geometry”,
    “The Symposium on Shape”.

Comments are closed.