Are we going to send suggestions of reviewers?
What about Rodrigo de Salvo Braz? Bernd Fischer? Avi Pfeffer?
I was thinking Daniel Huang, perhaps Jean-Baptiste Tristan, who else? Klaus Osterman?? Tiark Rompf??
I would be fine with any of those (additional?) names.
Though Daniel might be a little too ‘junior’ in a case like this. We need some ‘weight’ on our side.
Plus, if we suggest a lot of names, I guess that means we have less of a chance of knowing who it eventually is. [And it’s mildly embarassing to the ICFP PC… which I think would be a good thing to do.]
What about adding Guy Steele? Or “PLDI reviewer A”?
No idea if Guy Steele knows about probabilistic programming - I’ll trust you on that front. “PLDI reviewer A” is an interesting thought indeed!
Thanks. So we now wait for @samth to chyme in?
Any of those names are good, although Guy was on my thesis committee
How long ago was that? Most conflicts rules have time limitations.
So I did a little sleuthing - seems like that was in 2010. 8 years is long enough ago!
@ccshan I think this means we can include Guy Steele. And perhaps send the list now, unless @samth wants to include more names?
How about Martin Vechev?
Yeah… Will queue for next email to Tanter.
So we should still prepare our response, at least to the reviews we do have.
Due tomorrow and all that.
Yes. I’ll be around in 40 minutes or so to work on this
I committed some text scraps for the author response, and Sam is typing
I’ll wait for Sam’s check-in to do more than comment on the text scraps — too high a chance of useless interference.
You can think about what to say and what not to say in the response
I have indeed thought about that. And am continuing to do so.
It seems to me that non-experts might not really “get” how hard (and important) arrays were to add to this.
And FP non-experts might over-value the use of recursion (general or otherwise) in probabilistic modelling.
Sorry I was not checking in something to that
so comment now
Comment or write?
Jacques, you have the edit lock for at least 30 minutes
Ok, using it now.
isn’t a shared google doc better for doing collaborative editing?
I’m fine with that. I’ve checked in a first pass of the thoughts I had - if you want to start a Google Doc, now’s a good time.
Note: the explicit answers to Rev. A are really good!
Generally, I find that there is very little to say to Rev. B and C (beyond what I wrote online now). Seems B should be told that his ‘call’ that we’re out-of-scope has been overruled. And I don’t think there’s anything we can say to C (or want to) to get a grade change. The paper is too technical to appeal to someone who rates themselves a Z.
In any case, I’ve written what I can in the Google Doc. There were no questions on either the symbolic parts (where I am quite knowledgeable), or histogram (Ken’s the expert, but I do understand it all).
I drafted a response in the Google Doc.