version=pmwiki-2.1.27 ordered=1 urlencoded=1
agent=Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12
author=seago
csum=
ctime=1201872364
host=65.89.177.1
name=Main.TechnicalPolicyAndProcedureDocument
rev=36
targets=Main.DoD,Main.TCs,Main.PastSubmissionAndPresentationIssues
text=This is the Technical Policy and Procedure Document of the Technical Administration Subcommittee.  It is being compiled per the request of the Subcommittee chair.  %0a%0a(Bo Naasz) I took a stab at an outline, mostly to demonstrate how to do it.  Haven't included any of the stuff in the [[http://space-flight.org/manuals/manuals.html | The Summer Manual]].%0a%0a(:toc:)%0a%0a! Document Charter%0aWork towards the development of a technical policy and procedure document where we record the details of how we conduct the technical aspects of conferences.  Goal is to have a completed document for Savannah. (Shannon�s comment: If the document is completed by Honolulu, then can provide to Felix�s subcommittee for comments, between Honolulu and Savannah and then submit jointly to the full SFM committee for ratification.)%0a%0a! Contributing Editors%0aAlan Lovell volunteered to be the point person.  %0aThese people volunteered to support the effort:  %0a* John Seago%0a* Maruthi Akella%0a* Bo Naasz %0a* Ryan Russell%0a* Danielle Mortari%0a%0a! Scope%0a%0aThe granting of waivers, exemptions, or extensions to the policies and procedures are not generally recommended, although they may be required given justifiable circumstances.  Many conference participants act out of habit, and may not respond as expected to policies and procedures that fluctuate from one meeting to the next.  The granting of waivers, exemptions, or extensions ultimately remain at the discretion of the Technical Chairs.  A minimal criterion is that the Chair must be comfortable explaining such decisions to the larger Space Flight Mechanics Committee.%0a%0aParticipants cannot be expected to follow conference policies when they don't know the policy.  Also, experience shows that some participants will ignore conference policies when they believe there will be no consequences.  This requires the Chairmen to both announce, and enforce if necessary, the conference policies.%0a%0a!!Announcement of Policies and Procedures%0a%0aChairs should clarify in advance the policies and procedures to which authors shall adhere.  It is not necessary to explain the motive of every policy given to authors; however, a Chair should understand and be able to explain the motive for any policy to which a participant wants to deviate.%0a%0aThe call for papers should only announce the most basic policies and procedures that are minimally necessary to successfully complete the abstract submission process.  It may include, for example, reference to the fact that there will be paper format and page limit requirements, since authors may need to anticipate precise format requirements for sponsor approvals in advance of the abstract deadline.  The announcement of more detailed policies (otherwise irrelevant to the call for papers) may be done once an abstract has been accepted.%0a%0a!!Enforcement of Policies and Procedures%0a%0aFollowing rules is inconvenient. Ninety-nine percent of conference participants are honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.  Active policy enforcement therefore has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", and is more about being fair to the honorable participants that have been inconvenienced by these policies.%0a%0aBecause following and enforcing rules is inconvenient, attempts to fix problems with new rules can create new, unanticipated problems.  Therefore, no policy or procedure should be announced unless the Technical Chairmen are willing and able to monitor and enforce it.  Unfortunately, there are only a few policy enforcement mechanisms available to the Technical Chairman.  They include:%0a%0a* rejecting an abstract submission for non-technical reasons%0a%0a* modifying or deleting an author's contribution to the submission system%0a%0a* forfeiting an author's presentation slot%0a%0a* withdrawing (by removing or clobbering) an author's uploaded electronic preprint%0a%0a* omitting a manuscript from the final proceedings%0a%0aBecause the final means of enforcement are so drastic, few people rarely want to take the risk.  However, some participants will test the policies - sometimes in very imaginative ways and without permission - presuming that a policy waiver will be granted.  Many authors expect the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, believe a policy is arbitrary, do not think enforcement will be exercised, or feel they personally know the Chair well enough to be excused.%0a%0aChairs must anticipate how to respond fairly if/when a waiver may be truly necessary.  The most important aspect of understanding when a waiver is necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email (so there is a record of the communication).  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament, without contradiction of facts, in writing.  The Technical Chair should make use of his Session Chairs to help elicit information about extreme cases requiring waivers.  %0a%0aIf the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions at the last minute.  He also sets a precedent that creates management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.  Most authors willingly stick to the rules or else withdraw, although a few will reflexively ask for a waiver.  Occasionally, Chairmen reflexively grant such waivers, only to discover that this was not an adequate response to the problem.  For example, an unprepared author may request a deadline extension to avoid forfeiture; however, their unpreparedness later results in a withdrawal anyway, adding stress and work for the Chairmen.  Straying from the policies in only the most unusual circumstances will provide for the most pleasant conference experience for all concerned.%0a%0a! Technical Policies%0a%0a!! No Paper / No Podium Policy%0a %0aA No Paper / No Podium Policy will be in effect and should be strictly enforced. This policy should be stated in the call for papers, which is first drafted approximately one year before the conference.  The policy for AAS-led meetings is:%0a%0a"Completed manuscripts shall be electronically uploaded to the submission site prior to the conference, be no more than twenty (20) pages in length, and conform to the AAS conference paper format. If the completed manuscript is not contributed on time, then there shall be no conference presentation; if there is no conference presentation by an author, then the contributed manuscript shall be withdrawn."%0a%0aNote that the policy is short, but specially worded.  It references a "completed manuscript" but does not belabor "preprint" verses "final" manuscripts (which is unnecessary and possibly confusing as part of the call for papers).  It does not include specific upload dates, times, or website names, to keep the policy reasonably generic. It mentions specific characteristics that highlight similarities and potential differences with the AIAA No Paper / No Podium Policy:%0a%0a1)  The AAS policy requires the presenter be an author, not merely a conference attendee (the AIAA does not necessarily require "presentation by an author").%0a%0a2)  The AIAA may not announce or enforce a page limit (because the AIAA no longer maintains printed proceedings).%0a%0a3)  The AIAA may not announce or enforce a paper format (the AIAA has greatly relaxed their format requirements since moving to all-electronic proceedings).%0a%0aExcept when referring to the "no-paper / no-podium" policy by title, that the word "manuscript" may be preferred over "paper" when referring to technical contributions.  This is to avoid confusion with a physical (paper) copy of contribution a versus the electronic content to be delivered.%0a%0a!! Deadlines/Extensions%0a%0aThere are three (3) submission deadlines that Technical Chairs must maintain:  abstracts, preprints, and final manuscripts.  The system only allows one to specify the  date, not time, for a deadline.  The deadline time is implicitly 23:59:59 Eastern Standard/Daylight Time on the date specified.%0a%0aAs a general policy, deadline extensions are not recommended.  Recent experience suggests that abstract deadline and preprint deadline extensions may not be necessary, as long as authors know what to expect.%0a%0a!!!Abstract Deadlines%0a%0aWhile it is our policy to not encourage submissions after the abstract deadline has expired, sometimes it is to the benefit of the meeting to accept abstracts belatedly, especially if the meeting's manuscript count is lower than average.  Fortunately, when an author directly asks to submit a late abstract, this is evidence that the author is sincere in his intentions to contribute to the meeting.  At the same time, experience suggests that late-submitters demonstrate a higher-than-average withdrawal rate.  Two factors may be in play:%0a%0a1)  If the author already missed the abstract deadline, this is evidence that he is somewhat insensitive to the meeting deadlines in general.%0a%0a2)  If he is submitting late, he is already behind schedule and also may not realize the true effort and time required to complete the paper.%0a%0a'''Procedure:''' If an author desires to submit a paper late, the TC may require that a completed paper or mature draft be submitted in lieu of an extended abstract in order to be accepted.  This is to verify that there will not be issues with have a paper ready by the upload deadline for the meeting.%0a%0aFor reference, abstract submittal deadline extensions in past AAS meetings have been:%0a!!!! Galveston 2008%0a%0aThe abstract upload deadline was set for Sunday Oct. 7.  This date was decided to be sufficiently far from the end of the summer conference, as well as past the Labor Day holiday and after the end of the govt. fiscal year ending Sept. 30.  It was also placed on a Sunday to give submitters an additional weekend to prepare their abstracts.%0a%0aThe first email announcement was sent three (3) weeks before the deadline.  The second email announcement was sent one week before the deadline.  In the email, we clarified that "preference may be given to the earliest submissions as the number of submissions exceeds the limited number of presentation slots. We also ask that you please be aware that this date has been fully extended for the convenience of contributors and there are no plans to defer this extended deadline due to the constraints of the conference schedule."  We found that stating a "preference to early submissions" was not helpful at getting early submissions.%0a%0aBecause of reports of last minute submission problems, we left the abstract submittal system open for an additional 48 hours past the deadline but we did not announce this.  (The extension must be done manually by changing the system date after midnight EST/EDT each day, because the submission web page automatically displays the abstract deadline date to submitting authors.)  We discovered that we received a 10%25 surge in submissions during the 24 hours after the deadline, and very few thereafter.%0a%0aBased on our experience, we can recommend the following procedure:%0a1)  Set the abstract due date for winter conferences to be the 2nd Sunday after Oct 1.%0a%0a2)  Announce that this date has been fully extended for the convenience of contributors and there are no plans to defer this extended deadline.%0a%0a3)  Send the 1st email announcement after Labor Day, and the 2nd email announcement one (1) week before the deadline.%0a%0a4)  Do not announce an extension, but reset the deadline by advancing it 24 hours if necessary.%0a%0a5)  Be patient:%0a%0a      a) 24%25 of abstracts were uploaded 3 days before the deadline%0a%0a      b) 64%25 of abstracts were uploaded within 3 days before the deadline%0a%0a      c) 10%25 of abstracts were uploaded 1 day after the deadline%0a%0a      d)  2%25 were accepted late.%0a%0aTo the 2%25 who were late, we used this language in responding to their request: "We have no shortage of abstracts and the Technical Chairs have therefore discussed our capacity to accept a late submittal for this conference.  Since our goal is not to discourage submissions from those who are sincerely interested in presenting a paper, we will accept your belated abstract submission for this conference.  However, to do this we require that you promptly follow these instructions..."%0a%0a!!!! Mackinac Island 2007 (Ron Proulx, please comment)%0a%0a!!!! Sedona 2007 (Maruthi, please comment)%0a%0a!!!! Keystone 2006 (Alan Lovell, please comment)%0a%0a!!!! Tampa 2005%0a%0a!!!! Copper Mountain 2005%0a%0a!!!! Maui 2004 %0a%0a!!! Preprint Manuscript Deadlines%0a%0aAn upload deadline for preprint manuscripts should be announced as part of the notification of manuscript acceptance.  This deadline should be set one (1) or two (2) business days before the conference.%0a%0a[A survey was taken at Galveston as to the suitability of this deadline.  The results have not yet been accurately tallied, although a quick review suggested that most responders were satisfied with a 72 hour deadline before the conference.]%0a%0aThe purpose of having an upload deadline several days before the conference is to overcome certain problems that have resulted from our meeting moving to electronic manuscript submissions:%0a%0aa) Physical paper copies are no longer required.  If a registrant wants to view manuscripts, he must download a huge zip archive that can take 15 minutes or more to retrieve.  Conference locations often do not provide sufficient bandwidth to allow timely or successful downloads.%0a%0ab) Because of the lack of timely access, chairmen have often been unable to enforce the long-standing no-paper, no-podium policy once they are at the conference, so they must be able to verify well before the conference that a paper will be available.%0a%0ac) Not every registrant has an internet capable computer at the conference to download and read these manuscripts electronically.%0a%0aWe have also experienced the following benefits of having a %0a%0ai) reduction and/or elimination of "no-shows"%0a%0aii) more accurate last-minute program adjustments%0a%0aiii) smoother on-site conference operations%0a%0aiv) fewer/no complaints about lack of preprint availability%0a%0aBecause of the way the upload system is implemented, authors cannot change their uploaded preprint manuscripts after the deadline.  This is because the preprint serves the same purpose as the former physical (paper) copies available at the conference.%0a%0aBecause the preprints are now electronic, and because preprints are rarely submitted in a perfected state, the Technical Chairmen do receive multiple requests to update the preprint after the deadline.  As a matter of policy, the Technical Chairmen should not change preprint manuscripts after the upload deadline unless:%0a%0aa)  the paper's sponsoring organization has determined that the manuscript contains information that should not be in the public domain and alerted us to that fact, or,%0a%0ab)  a session chair alerts the Technical Chairmen to the fact the contents of the file are illegible, badly malformed, or has content inappropriate for our intended audience.%0a%0aOtherwise, authors should be reminded that there will be an opportunity immediately following the conference to upload a final (camera-ready) version that will go into the electronic and printed proceedings, and corrections can be made to that version.%0a%0aPast Technical Chairmen have worked out an unadvertised contingency plan for presenters whose papers are completed but still pending authorization for release from a government sponsor (DoD, DARPA, etc.).  These are the conditions that must be met:%0a%0a1)  The authors must have notified the Technical Chairmen ''before'' the upload deadline that sponsorship approval will be delayed, and affirm that that a release is expected ''before'' the day of presentation.%0a %0a2)  The title, authors, paper number, and abstract must be electronically uploaded onto a single placeholder page.   The page must be uploaded ''before'' the preprint deadline.  This page must also include an announcement that the paper was awaiting approval from a government sponsor at the time of the upload deadline and that physical copies therefore will be available at the conference.  (A TC may elect to load the placeholder on behalf on an author as necessary.)%0a%0a3)  The TCs will grant an extension to upload the actual preprint until the day before presentation.  The author agrees to upload sooner if possible.%0a%0a4)  The presenting author does not receive registration credentials (e.g., name tag) until he demonstrates that he has at least fifty (50) physical paper copies upon check-in at the conference.  These copies must put out before the time of presentation (or, as soon as release is approved by the sponsor).%0a%0a5)  If the approval to release does not come through by 7 AM the morning of the presentation, the paper will be considered a "no-show" and it be withdrawn from the conference.  A record of the "no-show" should be recorded here: [[Past submission and presentation issues]].%0a%0a!!! Final Manuscript Deadlines%0a%0a!! Next Policy%0a%0a%0a! Technical Procedures%0aThese are the procedures%0a%0a!! Next Procedure
time=1202751736
author:1202751736=seago
diff:1202751736:1202512751:minor=21,22c21,22%0a%3c The granting of waivers, exemptions, or extensions to the policies and procedures are not generally recommended, although they may be required given justifiable circumstances.  Many conference participants act out of habit, and may not respond as expected to policies and procedures that fluctuate from one meeting to the next.  The granting of waivers, exemptions, or extensions ultimately remain at the discretion of the Technical Chairs.  A minimal criterion is that the Chair must be comfortable explaining such decisions to the larger Space Flight Mechanics Committee.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> The granting waivers, exemptions, or extensions to the policies and procedures may be required by extreme circumstances.  Such grants ultimately remain at the discretion of the Technical Chairs.  The minimal criterion for grants is that the Chair must be comfortable personally explaining the change of policy, and its motive, to the larger Space Flight Mechanics Committee.%0a> %0a61,64c61,64%0a%3c Note that the policy is short, but specially worded.  It references a "completed manuscript" but does not belabor "preprint" verses "final" manuscripts (which is unnecessary and possibly confusing as part of the call for papers).  It does not include specific upload dates, times, or website names, to keep the policy reasonably generic. It mentions specific characteristics that highlight similarities and potential differences with the AIAA No Paper / No Podium Policy:%0a%3c %0a%3c 1)  The AAS policy requires the presenter be an author, not merely a conference attendee (the AIAA does not necessarily require "presentation by an author").%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Note that the policy is short, but specially worded.  It defines a "completed manuscript" but does not belabor "preprint" verses "final" manuscripts (which is unnecessary and possibly confusing as part of the call for papers).  It does not include specific upload dates, times, or website names, to keep the policy reasonably generic. It mentions specific characteristics that highlight similarities and potential differences with the AIAA No Paper / No Podium Policy:%0a> %0a> 1)  The AIAA may not require "presentation by an author" (the AAS policy requires the presenter be an author, not merely a conference attendee).%0a> %0a69,70c69,70%0a%3c Except when referring to the "no-paper / no-podium" policy by title, that the word "manuscript" may be preferred over "paper" when referring to technical contributions.  This is to avoid confusion with a physical (paper) copy of contribution a versus the electronic content to be delivered.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Except when referring to the "no-paper / no-podium" policy by title, that the word "manuscript" is preferred over "paper" when referring to technical contributions.  This is to avoid confusion with a physical (paper) copy of contribution a versus the electronic content to be delivered.%0a> %0a
host:1202751736=65.89.177.1
author:1202512751=seago
diff:1202512751:1202502368:minor=21,24c21,24%0a%3c The granting waivers, exemptions, or extensions to the policies and procedures may be required by extreme circumstances.  Such grants ultimately remain at the discretion of the Technical Chairs.  The minimal criterion for grants is that the Chair must be comfortable personally explaining the change of policy, and its motive, to the larger Space Flight Mechanics Committee.%0a%3c %0a%3c Participants cannot be expected to follow conference policies when they don't know the policy.  Also, experience shows that some participants will ignore conference policies when they believe there will be no consequences.  This requires the Chairmen to both announce, and enforce if necessary, the conference policies.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Ultimately, any decision to grant a waiver, exemption, or extension to the policies and procedures remains at the discretion of the Technical Chairs.  The minimal criterion is that the Chair should be comfortable personally explaining any decision to change policy to the larger Space Flight Mechanics Committee.%0a> %0a> Participants may not follow conference policies when they don't know about the policy, or, they do not believe there will be consequences when straying from a policy.  This requires Technical Chairmen to both announce, and enforce if necessary, the conference policy.%0a> %0a27,30c27,30%0a%3c Chairs should clarify in advance the policies and procedures to which authors shall adhere.  It is not necessary to explain the motive of every policy given to authors; however, a Chair should understand and be able to explain the motive for any policy to which a participant wants to deviate.%0a%3c %0a%3c The call for papers should only announce the most basic policies and procedures that are minimally necessary to successfully complete the abstract submission process.  It may include, for example, reference to the fact that there will be paper format and page limit requirements, since authors may need to anticipate precise format requirements for sponsor approvals in advance of the abstract deadline.  The announcement of more detailed policies (otherwise irrelevant to the call for papers) may be done once an abstract has been accepted.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Chairs should clarify in advance the policies and procedures to which authors shall adhere.  It is not necessary to explain the motive of every policy given to authors; however, a Chair should understand and explain the motive for any policy to which a participant is requesting to deviate.%0a> %0a> The call for papers should only announce the very basic policies and procedures that are minimally necessary to successfully complete the paper submission process.  It should include, for example, reference to the fact that there are paper format and page limit requirements, since authors may need to anticipate precise format requirements in advance of the abstract deadline for sponsor approvals.  The announcement of more detailed policies (otherwise irrelevant to the call for papers) may be done once an abstract has been accepted.%0a> %0a33,36c33,36%0a%3c Following rules is inconvenient. Ninety-nine percent of conference participants are honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.  Active policy enforcement therefore has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", and is more about being fair to the honorable participants that have been inconvenienced by these policies.%0a%3c %0a%3c Because following and enforcing rules is inconvenient, attempts to fix problems with new rules can create new, unanticipated problems.  Therefore, no policy or procedure should be announced unless the Technical Chairmen are willing and able to monitor and enforce it.  Unfortunately, there are only a few policy enforcement mechanisms available to the Technical Chairman.  They include:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Following rules is inconvenient. Ninety-nine percent of conference participants are honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.  Policy enforcement therefore has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", and is more about being fair.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those inconvenienced but honorable participants that follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a> %0a> Because following and enforcing rules is inconvenient, attempts to fix problems with new rules can create new, unanticipated problems.  Therefore, no policy or procedure should be announced unless the Technical Chairmen are willing and able to monitor and enforce it.  Unfortunately, there are only a few policy enforcement mechanisms available to the Technical Chairman, and these can be rather drastic.  They include:%0a> %0a47,52c47,50%0a%3c Because the final means of enforcement are so drastic, few people rarely want to take the risk.  However, some participants will test the policies - sometimes in very imaginative ways and without permission - presuming that a policy waiver will be granted.  Many authors expect the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, believe a policy is arbitrary, do not think enforcement will be exercised, or feel they personally know the Chair well enough to be excused.%0a%3c %0a%3c Chairs must anticipate how to respond fairly if/when a waiver may be truly necessary.  The most important aspect of understanding when a waiver is necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email (so there is a record of the communication).  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament, without contradiction of facts, in writing.  The Technical Chair should make use of his Session Chairs to help elicit information about extreme cases requiring waivers.  %0a%3c %0a%3c If the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions at the last minute.  He also sets a precedent that creates management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.  Most authors willingly stick to the rules or else withdraw, although a few will reflexively ask for a waiver.  Occasionally, Chairmen reflexively grant such waivers, only to discover that this was not an adequate response to the problem.  For example, an unprepared author may request a deadline extension to avoid forfeiture; however, their unpreparedness later results in a withdrawal anyway, adding stress and work for the Chairmen.  Straying from the policies in only the most unusual circumstances will provide for the most pleasant conference experience for all concerned.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> A Chair will be faced - sooner or later - with enforcing established policies and procedures.  If the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions at the last minute.  He also sets a precedent that creates management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.%0a> %0a> Participants violate policies - sometimes in very imaginative ways and without permission - expecting a policy waiver.  Many authors expect the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, believe a policy is arbitrary, or feel they can because they know the Chair personally.  Chairs should therefore anticipate how to respond fairly if/when a waiver may be truly necessary (and be prepared to enforce them otherwise).  The most important aspect of understanding when a waiver is necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email so there is a record of the communication.  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament, without contradiction, in writing.  Often authors reflexively ask for a waiver, and Chairmen reflexively grant them, only to discover that this was not an adequate response to the problem.  For example, an unprepared author may request a deadline extension to avoid forfeiture; however, their unpreparedness later results in a withdrawal anyway, adding stress and work for the Chairmen.%0a> %0a
host:1202512751=65.89.177.1
author:1202502368=seago
diff:1202502368:1202502092:minor=47,48c47,48%0a%3c A Chair will be faced - sooner or later - with enforcing established policies and procedures.  If the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions at the last minute.  He also sets a precedent that creates management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Chairs will be - sooner or later - faced with enforcing established policies and procedures.  If the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions at the last minute.  He will also set a precedent that elevates the management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.%0a> %0a
host:1202502368=65.89.177.1
author:1202502092=seago
diff:1202502092:1202501989:=49,50c49,50%0a%3c Participants violate policies - sometimes in very imaginative ways and without permission - expecting a policy waiver.  Many authors expect the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, believe a policy is arbitrary, or feel they can because they know the Chair personally.  Chairs should therefore anticipate how to respond fairly if/when a waiver may be truly necessary (and be prepared to enforce them otherwise).  The most important aspect of understanding when a waiver is necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email so there is a record of the communication.  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament, without contradiction, in writing.  Often authors reflexively ask for a waiver, and Chairmen reflexively grant them, only to discover that this was not an adequate response to the problem.  For example, an unprepared author may request a deadline extension to avoid forfeiture; however, their unpreparedness later results in a withdrawal anyway, adding stress and work for the Chairmen.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Participants violate policies - sometimes in very imaginative ways and without permission - expecting a policy waiver.  Many authors expect the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, believe a policy is arbitrary, or feel they can because they know the Chair personally.  Chairs should therefore anticipate how to respond fairly if/when a waiver may be truly necessary (and be prepared to enforce them otherwise).  The most important aspect of understanding when a waiver is necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email so there is a record of the communication.  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament, without contradiction, in writing.  Often authors reflexively ask for a waiver, and Chairmen reflexively grant them, only to discover that this was not an adequate response to the problem.  For example, an unprepared author may request a deadline extension to avoid forfeiture; however, their unpreparedness later results in withdrawal anyway, adding more stress and work for the Chairmen later.%0a> %0a
host:1202502092=65.89.177.1
author:1202501989=seago
diff:1202501989:1202501880:minor=23,24c23,24%0a%3c Participants may not follow conference policies when they don't know about the policy, or, they do not believe there will be consequences when straying from a policy.  This requires Technical Chairmen to both announce, and enforce if necessary, the conference policy.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Participants may not follow conference policies when they don't know about the policy, or, they do not believe there will be consequences when straying from a policy.  This requires Technical Chairmen to both announce, and enforce, the conference policy.%0a> %0a
host:1202501989=65.89.177.1
author:1202501880=seago
diff:1202501880:1202500662:minor=33,34c33,34%0a%3c Following rules is inconvenient. Ninety-nine percent of conference participants are honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.  Policy enforcement therefore has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", and is more about being fair.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those inconvenienced but honorable participants that follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Following the rules is inconvenient.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those inconvenienced but honorable participants that follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.  Policy enforcement actually has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", but has more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.%0a> %0a
host:1202501880=65.89.177.1
author:1202500662=seago
diff:1202500662:1202500146:minor=49,50c49,50%0a%3c Participants violate policies - sometimes in very imaginative ways and without permission - expecting a policy waiver.  Many authors expect the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, believe a policy is arbitrary, or feel they can because they know the Chair personally.  Chairs should therefore anticipate how to respond fairly if/when a waiver may be truly necessary (and be prepared to enforce them otherwise).  The most important aspect of understanding when a waiver is necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email so there is a record of the communication.  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament, without contradiction, in writing.  Often authors reflexively ask for a waiver, and Chairmen reflexively grant them, only to discover that this was not an adequate response to the problem.  For example, an unprepared author may request a deadline extension to avoid forfeiture; however, their unpreparedness later results in withdrawal anyway, adding more stress and work for the Chairmen later.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Participants violate policies - sometimes in very imaginative ways and without permission - expecting a policy waiver.  Many authors expect the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, or believe a policy is arbitrary.  Chairs should therefore anticipate on how to respond fairly if/when waiver may be truly necessary, and be psychologically prepared to enforce them if not.  The most important aspect of trying to understand when an exemption is truly necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email.  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament, without contradiction, in writing.  Often authors reflexively ask for a waiver, and Chairmen grant them, only to discover that the granting of their request was not an adequate response to solve a problem.  For example, an author may request a deadline extension when withdrawal should be advised.%0a> %0a
host:1202500662=65.89.177.1
author:1202500146=seago
diff:1202500146:1202499817:minor=49,50c49,50%0a%3c Participants violate policies - sometimes in very imaginative ways and without permission - expecting a policy waiver.  Many authors expect the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, or believe a policy is arbitrary.  Chairs should therefore anticipate on how to respond fairly if/when waiver may be truly necessary, and be psychologically prepared to enforce them if not.  The most important aspect of trying to understand when an exemption is truly necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email.  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament, without contradiction, in writing.  Often authors reflexively ask for a waiver, and Chairmen grant them, only to discover that the granting of their request was not an adequate response to solve a problem.  For example, an author may request a deadline extension when withdrawal should be advised.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Participants sometimes violate policies - sometimes in very imaginative ways - anticipating of a policy waiver.  Many authors expect the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, or believe a policy is arbitrary.  Chairs should therefore anticipate on how to respond fairly if/when waiver may be truly necessary, and be psychologically prepared to enforce them if not.  The most important aspect of trying to understand when an exemption is truly necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email.  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament, without contradiction, in writing.  Often authors reflexively ask for a waiver, and Chairmen grant them, only to discover that the granting of their request was not an adequate response to solve a problem.  For example, an author may request a deadline extension when withdrawal should be advised.%0a> %0a
host:1202500146=65.89.177.1
author:1202499817=seago
diff:1202499817:1202499720:minor=35,36c35,36%0a%3c Because following and enforcing rules is inconvenient, attempts to fix problems with new rules can create new, unanticipated problems.  Therefore, no policy or procedure should be announced unless the Technical Chairmen are willing and able to monitor and enforce it.  Unfortunately, there are only a few policy enforcement mechanisms available to the Technical Chairman, and these can be rather drastic.  They include:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Because following and enforcing rules is inconvenient, attempts to fix problems new rules can also create new, unanticipated problems.  Therefore, a new policy or procedure should not be announced unless the Technical Chairmen are willing and able to monitor and enforce it.  Unfortunately, there are only a few policy enforcement mechanisms available to the Technical Chairman, and these can be rather drastic.  They include:%0a> %0a
host:1202499817=65.89.177.1
author:1202499720=seago
diff:1202499720:1202499632:=33,34c33,34%0a%3c Following the rules is inconvenient.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those inconvenienced but honorable participants that follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.  Policy enforcement actually has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", but has more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Following the rules is inconvenient.  Policy enforcement actually has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", but has more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those inconvenienced but honorable participants that follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a> %0a
host:1202499720=65.89.177.1
author:1202499632=seago
diff:1202499632:1202498345:=10,18d9%0a%3c ! Contributing Editors%0a%3c Alan Lovell volunteered to be the point person.  %0a%3c These people volunteered to support the effort:  %0a%3c * John Seago%0a%3c * Maruthi Akella%0a%3c * Bo Naasz %0a%3c * Ryan Russell%0a%3c * Danielle Mortari%0a%3c %0a21,30c12,13%0a%3c Ultimately, any decision to grant a waiver, exemption, or extension to the policies and procedures remains at the discretion of the Technical Chairs.  The minimal criterion is that the Chair should be comfortable personally explaining any decision to change policy to the larger Space Flight Mechanics Committee.%0a%3c %0a%3c Participants may not follow conference policies when they don't know about the policy, or, they do not believe there will be consequences when straying from a policy.  This requires Technical Chairmen to both announce, and enforce, the conference policy.%0a%3c %0a%3c !!Announcement of Policies and Procedures%0a%3c %0a%3c Chairs should clarify in advance the policies and procedures to which authors shall adhere.  It is not necessary to explain the motive of every policy given to authors; however, a Chair should understand and explain the motive for any policy to which a participant is requesting to deviate.%0a%3c %0a%3c The call for papers should only announce the very basic policies and procedures that are minimally necessary to successfully complete the paper submission process.  It should include, for example, reference to the fact that there are paper format and page limit requirements, since authors may need to anticipate precise format requirements in advance of the abstract deadline for sponsor approvals.  The announcement of more detailed policies (otherwise irrelevant to the call for papers) may be done once an abstract has been accepted.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Participants may not follow conference policies when they don't know about the policy, or, they do not believe there will be consequences when straying from a policy.  This requires Technical Chairmen to adequately announce, and enforce, conference policy.%0a> %0a33,38c16,19%0a%3c Following the rules is inconvenient.  Policy enforcement actually has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", but has more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those inconvenienced but honorable participants that follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a%3c %0a%3c Because following and enforcing rules is inconvenient, attempts to fix problems new rules can also create new, unanticipated problems.  Therefore, a new policy or procedure should not be announced unless the Technical Chairmen are willing and able to monitor and enforce it.  Unfortunately, there are only a few policy enforcement mechanisms available to the Technical Chairman, and these can be rather drastic.  They include:%0a%3c %0a%3c * rejecting an abstract submission for non-technical reasons%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Policy enforcement actually has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", but has more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those participants that honorably follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a> %0a> Any attempt to fix a problem via policy change can create new, unanticipated problems.  This is because it can be highly inconvenient for participants to follow well-intentioned rules, and for Chairs to enforce them.  Therefore, a policy or procedure should not be announced unless the Technical Chairmen are willing and able to monitor and enforce compliance.  Unfortunately, there are only a few enforcement mechanismS available to the Technical Chairman, and these can be fairly drastic.  These include:%0a> %0a43,50c24,51%0a%3c * withdrawing (by removing or clobbering) an author's uploaded electronic preprint%0a%3c %0a%3c * omitting a manuscript from the final proceedings%0a%3c %0a%3c Chairs will be - sooner or later - faced with enforcing established policies and procedures.  If the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions at the last minute.  He will also set a precedent that elevates the management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.%0a%3c %0a%3c Participants sometimes violate policies - sometimes in very imaginative ways - anticipating of a policy waiver.  Many authors expect the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, or believe a policy is arbitrary.  Chairs should therefore anticipate on how to respond fairly if/when waiver may be truly necessary, and be psychologically prepared to enforce them if not.  The most important aspect of trying to understand when an exemption is truly necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email.  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament, without contradiction, in writing.  Often authors reflexively ask for a waiver, and Chairmen grant them, only to discover that the granting of their request was not an adequate response to solve a problem.  For example, an author may request a deadline extension when withdrawal should be advised.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> * removing / clobbering an author's uploaded electronic preprint%0a> %0a> * omitting a final paper from the printed proceedings%0a> %0a> For the latter reason, participants will sometimes test the established policies and procedures in very imaginative ways, and chairs will be - sooner or later - faced with enforcing them.  If the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions at the last minute.  He will also set a precedent that elevates the management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.%0a> %0a> Many authors ask the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, or believe a policy is arbitrary.  Chairs should therefore anticipate on how to respond fairly if/when exemptions may be truly necessary.  The most important aspect of trying to understand when an exemption is truly necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email.  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament in writing, rather than ask for a favor.  Often authors ask for "favors", only to discover that the granting of their request is/was not an adequate response to solve a problem; for example, an author may reflexively request a deadline extension when the details behind his request might otherwise lead a Chair to advise withdrawal.%0a> %0a> Ultimately, any decision to grant an exemption or extension to these policies and procedures remains with the discretion of the Technical Chairs.  The minimal criterion is that the Chair should be comfortable reporting and justifying a unilateral decision to change policy in person to the larger Space Flight Mechanics Committee.%0a> %0a> !!Announcement of Policies and Procedures%0a> %0a> Chairs should clarify in advance the policies and procedures to which authors shall adhere.  It is not necessary to justify every policy given to authors; however, a Chair should be able to explain the motive for a policy to any participant requesting to deviate from it.%0a> %0a> The call for papers should only announce basic policies and procedures that are minimally necessary to successfully complete the paper submission process.  It should include, for example, reference to the fact that there are paper format and page limit requirements, since authors may need to anticipate requirements for sponsor approvals in advance of the abstract deadline.  It should not include, for example, the registration fee cancellation policy.  The announcement of more detailed policies (otherwise irrelevant to the call for papers) may be done once an abstract has been accepted.%0a> %0a> %0a> ! Contributing Editors%0a> Alan Lovell volunteered to be the point person.  %0a> These people volunteered to support the effort:  %0a> * John Seago%0a> * Maruthi Akella%0a> * Bo Naasz %0a> * Ryan Russell%0a> * Danielle Mortari%0a> %0a> %0a> %0a52c53,54%0a%3c %0a---%0a> These are the policies%0a> %0a
host:1202499632=65.89.177.1
author:1202498345=seago
diff:1202498345:1202497743:=12,13d11%0a%3c Participants may not follow conference policies when they don't know about the policy, or, they do not believe there will be consequences when straying from a policy.  This requires Technical Chairmen to adequately announce, and enforce, conference policy.%0a%3c %0a16,19c14,17%0a%3c Policy enforcement actually has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", but has more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those participants that honorably follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a%3c %0a%3c Any attempt to fix a problem via policy change can create new, unanticipated problems.  This is because it can be highly inconvenient for participants to follow well-intentioned rules, and for Chairs to enforce them.  Therefore, a policy or procedure should not be announced unless the Technical Chairmen are willing and able to monitor and enforce compliance.  Unfortunately, there are only a few enforcement mechanismS available to the Technical Chairman, and these can be fairly drastic.  These include:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Policy enforcement has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", but has more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those participants that honorably follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a> %0a> It should be remembered that any attempt to fix a problem via policy change can create new, unanticipated problems.  This is because it can be highly inconvenient for participants to follow well-intentioned rules, and for Chairs to enforce them.  Therefore, a policy or procedure should not be announced unless the Technical Chairmen are willing and able to monitor and enforce policy compliance.  Unfortunately, there are only a few enforcement mechanism available to the Technical Chairman, and these can be fairly drastic.  These include:%0a> %0a28,29c26,27%0a%3c For the latter reason, participants will sometimes test the established policies and procedures in very imaginative ways, and chairs will be - sooner or later - faced with enforcing them.  If the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions at the last minute.  He will also set a precedent that elevates the management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Nevertheless, participants will sometimes test the established policies and procedures in very imaginative ways, and chairs will be - sooner or later - faced with enforcing them.  If the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions that have been granted at the last minute.  He will also set a precedent that elevates the management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.%0a> %0a31a30,31%0a> Experience suggests%0a> %0a
host:1202498345=65.89.177.1
author:1202497743=seago
diff:1202497743:1202317717:=14,27c14,17%0a%3c Policy enforcement has less to do with catching or discouraging "cheaters", but has more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the honorable people who strive to carefully follow the policies simply because they exist.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those participants that honorably follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a%3c %0a%3c It should be remembered that any attempt to fix a problem via policy change can create new, unanticipated problems.  This is because it can be highly inconvenient for participants to follow well-intentioned rules, and for Chairs to enforce them.  Therefore, a policy or procedure should not be announced unless the Technical Chairmen are willing and able to monitor and enforce policy compliance.  Unfortunately, there are only a few enforcement mechanism available to the Technical Chairman, and these can be fairly drastic.  These include:%0a%3c %0a%3c * modifying or deleting an author's contribution to the submission system%0a%3c %0a%3c * forfeiting an author's presentation slot%0a%3c %0a%3c * removing / clobbering an author's uploaded electronic preprint%0a%3c %0a%3c * omitting a final paper from the printed proceedings%0a%3c %0a%3c Nevertheless, participants will sometimes test the established policies and procedures in very imaginative ways, and chairs will be - sooner or later - faced with enforcing them.  If the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions that have been granted at the last minute.  He will also set a precedent that elevates the management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> A policy or procedure should not be in place unless it can be enforced.  It is easy to create many well-intentioned rules, but it can be highly inconvenient for participants to follow them and for Chairs to enforce them.  Policy enforcement therefore has less to do with catching or discouraging cheaters, but more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the people who strive to carefully follow the rules because we said there were rules to be followed.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those participants that honorably follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a> %0a> Participants will sometimes test the established policies and procedures in very imaginative ways, and chairs will be - sooner or later - faced with enforcing them.  If the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions that have been granted at the last minute.  He will also set a precedent that elevates the management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.%0a> %0a30,31d19%0a%3c Experience suggests%0a%3c %0a
host:1202497743=65.89.177.1
author:1202317717=seago
csum:1202317717=late abstact policy
diff:1202317717:1202241195:=67,74d66%0a%3c While it is our policy to not encourage submissions after the abstract deadline has expired, sometimes it is to the benefit of the meeting to accept abstracts belatedly, especially if the meeting's manuscript count is lower than average.  Fortunately, when an author directly asks to submit a late abstract, this is evidence that the author is sincere in his intentions to contribute to the meeting.  At the same time, experience suggests that late-submitters demonstrate a higher-than-average withdrawal rate.  Two factors may be in play:%0a%3c %0a%3c 1)  If the author already missed the abstract deadline, this is evidence that he is somewhat insensitive to the meeting deadlines in general.%0a%3c %0a%3c 2)  If he is submitting late, he is already behind schedule and also may not realize the true effort and time required to complete the paper.%0a%3c %0a%3c '''Procedure:''' If an author desires to submit a paper late, the TC may require that a completed paper or mature draft be submitted in lieu of an extended abstract in order to be accepted.  This is to verify that there will not be issues with have a paper ready by the upload deadline for the meeting.%0a%3c %0a
host:1202317717=65.89.177.1
author:1202241195=seago
diff:1202241195:1202240348:=61,62c61,62%0a%3c There are three (3) submission deadlines that Technical Chairs must maintain:  abstracts, preprints, and final manuscripts.  The system only allows one to specify the  date, not time, for a deadline.  The deadline time is implicitly 23:59:59 Eastern Standard/Daylight Time on the date specified.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> There are three (3) submission deadlines that Technical Chairs must maintain:  abstracts, preprints, and final manuscripts.%0a> %0a135,145c135,145%0a%3c Because the preprints are now electronic, and because preprints are rarely submitted in a perfected state, the Technical Chairmen do receive multiple requests to update the preprint after the deadline.  As a matter of policy, the Technical Chairmen should not change preprint manuscripts after the upload deadline unless:%0a%3c %0a%3c a)  the paper's sponsoring organization has determined that the manuscript contains information that should not be in the public domain and alerted us to that fact, or,%0a%3c %0a%3c b)  a session chair alerts the Technical Chairmen to the fact the contents of the file are illegible, badly malformed, or has content inappropriate for our intended audience.%0a%3c %0a%3c Otherwise, authors should be reminded that there will be an opportunity immediately following the conference to upload a final (camera-ready) version that will go into the electronic and printed proceedings, and corrections can be made to that version.%0a%3c %0a%3c Past Technical Chairmen have worked out an unadvertised contingency plan for presenters whose papers are completed but still pending authorization for release from a government sponsor (DoD, DARPA, etc.).  These are the conditions that must be met:%0a%3c %0a%3c 1)  The authors must have notified the Technical Chairmen ''before'' the upload deadline that sponsorship approval will be delayed, and affirm that that a release is expected ''before'' the day of presentation.%0a---%0a> Because the preprints are now electronic, the Technical Chairmen will receive multiple requests to update the preprint after the deadline.  As a matter of meeting policy, the Technical Chairmen do not change preprint manuscripts after the upload deadline unless:%0a> %0a> a)  a branch of the United States government, or the paper's sponsoring organization, has determined that the manuscript contains information that should not be in the public domain and alerted us to that fact, or,%0a> %0a> b)  a session chair alerts us to the fact the contents of the file are illegible, badly malformed, or has content inappropriate for our intended audience.%0a> %0a> Authors may need to be reminded that there will be an opportunity immediately following the conference to upload a final (camera-ready) version that will go into the electronic and printed proceedings.  Please make your corrections to that version.%0a> %0a> Past Technical Chairmen have worked out an unadvertised contingency plan for presenters whose papers are still pending authorization for release from a government sponsor (DoD, DARPA, etc.).  These are the conditions that must be met:%0a> %0a> 1)  The authors must have notified the Technical Chairmen ''before'' the upload deadline has past that sponsorship approval has been delayed, but is expected well before the day of presentation.%0a147,154c147,159%0a%3c 2)  The title, authors, paper number, and abstract must be electronically uploaded onto a single placeholder page.   The page must be uploaded ''before'' the preprint deadline.  This page must also include an announcement that the paper was awaiting approval from a government sponsor at the time of the upload deadline and that physical copies therefore will be available at the conference.  (A TC may elect to load the placeholder on behalf on an author as necessary.)%0a%3c %0a%3c 3)  The TCs will grant an extension to upload the actual preprint until the day before presentation.  The author agrees to upload sooner if possible.%0a%3c %0a%3c 4)  The presenting author does not receive registration credentials (e.g., name tag) until he demonstrates that he has at least fifty (50) physical paper copies upon check-in at the conference.  These copies must put out before the time of presentation (or, as soon as release is approved by the sponsor).%0a%3c %0a%3c 5)  If the approval to release does not come through by 7 AM the morning of the presentation, the paper will be considered a "no-show" and it be withdrawn from the conference.  A record of the "no-show" should be recorded here: [[Past submission and presentation issues]].%0a%3c %0a---%0a> 2)  ''Before'' the upload deadline, the title, authors, paper number, and abstract must be electronically uploaded on a single page in place of the manuscript.  This page must also include an announcement that the paper is still awaiting approval.  (A TC may elect to do this on behalf on an author as necessary.)%0a> %0a> 3)  The presenting author will be required to demonstrate that he has at least fifty (50) physical paper copies upon check-in at the conference, which must put out before the time of presentation (or, as soon as release is approved by the sponsor).  The author may not receive registration credentials (e.g., name tag) until this occurs.%0a> %0a> 4)  The TCs will grant an extension to upload the actual preprint until the day before you present.%0a> %0a> 5)  If your approval to release does not come through by 7 AM the morning of the presentation, the paper will be considered a "no-show" and it be withdrawn from the conference.  A record of this should be noted here: [[Past submission and presentation issues]]%0a> %0a> If a paper is not in the system by the upload deadline, we will still allow the authors to present if they provide at least 50 copies of their paper when the presenting author checks into the conference.  If the presenting author checks in Sunday, we will put out the papers Monday morning at 8 AM.%0a> %0a> I would like to also suggest that we further upload into the system a "dummy paper" - an announcement - stating that physical copies of the paper will be available at the conference.  They can clobber that with their own paper once it is ready.%0a> %0a> %0a
host:1202241195=65.89.177.1
author:1202240348=seago
diff:1202240348:1202240274:=153,154c153,154%0a%3c 5)  If your approval to release does not come through by 7 AM the morning of the presentation, the paper will be considered a "no-show" and it be withdrawn from the conference.  A record of this should be noted here: [[Past submission and presentation issues]]%0a%3c %0a---%0a> 5)  If your approval to release does not come through by 7 AM the morning of the presentation, the paper will be considered a "no-show" and it be withdrawn from the conference.  A record of this should be noted %0a> %0a
host:1202240348=65.89.177.1
author:1202240274=seago
diff:1202240274:1202239833:=143,145c143%0a%3c Past Technical Chairmen have worked out an unadvertised contingency plan for presenters whose papers are still pending authorization for release from a government sponsor (DoD, DARPA, etc.).  These are the conditions that must be met:%0a%3c %0a%3c 1)  The authors must have notified the Technical Chairmen ''before'' the upload deadline has past that sponsorship approval has been delayed, but is expected well before the day of presentation.%0a---%0a> Past Technical Chairmen worked out an unadvertised contingency plan for presenters whose papers are pending a release type of situation.  These are the conditions that you must meet:%0a147,154c145,153%0a%3c 2)  ''Before'' the upload deadline, the title, authors, paper number, and abstract must be electronically uploaded on a single page in place of the manuscript.  This page must also include an announcement that the paper is still awaiting approval.  (A TC may elect to do this on behalf on an author as necessary.)%0a%3c %0a%3c 3)  The presenting author will be required to demonstrate that he has at least fifty (50) physical paper copies upon check-in at the conference, which must put out before the time of presentation (or, as soon as release is approved by the sponsor).  The author may not receive registration credentials (e.g., name tag) until this occurs.%0a%3c %0a%3c 4)  The TCs will grant an extension to upload the actual preprint until the day before you present.%0a%3c %0a%3c 5)  If your approval to release does not come through by 7 AM the morning of the presentation, the paper will be considered a "no-show" and it be withdrawn from the conference.  A record of this should be noted %0a%3c %0a---%0a> 1)  Before the deadline, an *abstract* of your paper must be uploaded, together with an announcement that your paper is still awaiting approval (I did this for you).%0a> %0a> 2)  You are required to demonstrate to the Technical Chairmen that you have at least fifty (50) physical paper copies upon check-in at the conference, all of which we must put out the day of your presentation (or, as soon as you get approval to release).  You cannot receive your registration credentials until this occurs.%0a> %0a> 3)  We will grant you an extension to upload your actual preprint until the day before you present.%0a> %0a> 4)  If your approval to release does not come through by 7 AM the morning of the day you present, your paper will be considered a "no-show" and it be withdrawn from the conference.%0a> %0a> %0a
host:1202240274=65.89.177.1
author:1202239833=seago
diff:1202239833:1202238137:=111,153c111,112%0a%3c An upload deadline for preprint manuscripts should be announced as part of the notification of manuscript acceptance.  This deadline should be set one (1) or two (2) business days before the conference.%0a%3c %0a%3c [A survey was taken at Galveston as to the suitability of this deadline.  The results have not yet been accurately tallied, although a quick review suggested that most responders were satisfied with a 72 hour deadline before the conference.]%0a%3c %0a%3c The purpose of having an upload deadline several days before the conference is to overcome certain problems that have resulted from our meeting moving to electronic manuscript submissions:%0a%3c %0a%3c a) Physical paper copies are no longer required.  If a registrant wants to view manuscripts, he must download a huge zip archive that can take 15 minutes or more to retrieve.  Conference locations often do not provide sufficient bandwidth to allow timely or successful downloads.%0a%3c %0a%3c b) Because of the lack of timely access, chairmen have often been unable to enforce the long-standing no-paper, no-podium policy once they are at the conference, so they must be able to verify well before the conference that a paper will be available.%0a%3c %0a%3c c) Not every registrant has an internet capable computer at the conference to download and read these manuscripts electronically.%0a%3c %0a%3c We have also experienced the following benefits of having a %0a%3c %0a%3c i) reduction and/or elimination of "no-shows"%0a%3c %0a%3c ii) more accurate last-minute program adjustments%0a%3c %0a%3c iii) smoother on-site conference operations%0a%3c %0a%3c iv) fewer/no complaints about lack of preprint availability%0a%3c %0a%3c Because of the way the upload system is implemented, authors cannot change their uploaded preprint manuscripts after the deadline.  This is because the preprint serves the same purpose as the former physical (paper) copies available at the conference.%0a%3c %0a%3c Because the preprints are now electronic, the Technical Chairmen will receive multiple requests to update the preprint after the deadline.  As a matter of meeting policy, the Technical Chairmen do not change preprint manuscripts after the upload deadline unless:%0a%3c %0a%3c a)  a branch of the United States government, or the paper's sponsoring organization, has determined that the manuscript contains information that should not be in the public domain and alerted us to that fact, or,%0a%3c %0a%3c b)  a session chair alerts us to the fact the contents of the file are illegible, badly malformed, or has content inappropriate for our intended audience.%0a%3c %0a%3c Authors may need to be reminded that there will be an opportunity immediately following the conference to upload a final (camera-ready) version that will go into the electronic and printed proceedings.  Please make your corrections to that version.%0a%3c %0a%3c Past Technical Chairmen worked out an unadvertised contingency plan for presenters whose papers are pending a release type of situation.  These are the conditions that you must meet:%0a%3c  %0a%3c 1)  Before the deadline, an *abstract* of your paper must be uploaded, together with an announcement that your paper is still awaiting approval (I did this for you).%0a%3c %0a%3c 2)  You are required to demonstrate to the Technical Chairmen that you have at least fifty (50) physical paper copies upon check-in at the conference, all of which we must put out the day of your presentation (or, as soon as you get approval to release).  You cannot receive your registration credentials until this occurs.%0a%3c %0a%3c 3)  We will grant you an extension to upload your actual preprint until the day before you present.%0a%3c %0a%3c 4)  If your approval to release does not come through by 7 AM the morning of the day you present, your paper will be considered a "no-show" and it be withdrawn from the conference.%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a---%0a> An upload deadline for preprint manuscripts should be announced as part of the notification of manuscript acceptance.  This deadline should be set ''before'' the conference, not during or after.%0a> %0a
host:1202239833=65.89.177.1
author:1202238137=seago
diff:1202238137:1202174476:=111,117d110%0a%3c An upload deadline for preprint manuscripts should be announced as part of the notification of manuscript acceptance.  This deadline should be set ''before'' the conference, not during or after.%0a%3c %0a%3c If a paper is not in the system by the upload deadline, we will still allow the authors to present if they provide at least 50 copies of their paper when the presenting author checks into the conference.  If the presenting author checks in Sunday, we will put out the papers Monday morning at 8 AM.%0a%3c %0a%3c I would like to also suggest that we further upload into the system a "dummy paper" - an announcement - stating that physical copies of the paper will be available at the conference.  They can clobber that with their own paper once it is ready.%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a
host:1202238137=65.89.177.1
author:1202174476=seago
diff:1202174476:1202173833:minor=14,15c14,15%0a%3c A policy or procedure should not be in place unless it can be enforced.  It is easy to create many well-intentioned rules, but it can be highly inconvenient for participants to follow them and for Chairs to enforce them.  Policy enforcement therefore has less to do with catching or discouraging cheaters, but more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the people who strive to carefully follow the rules because we said there were rules to be followed.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those participants that honorably follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> We should not have a policy or procedure in place unless it is enforceable.  It is easy to create many well-intentioned rules, but it can be highly inconvenient for participants to follow them and for Chairs to enforce them.  Policy enforcement therefore has less to do with catching or discouraging cheaters, but more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the people who strive to carefully follow the rules because we said there were rules to be followed.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those participants that honorably follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a> %0a24,25c24,25%0a%3c Chairs should clarify in advance the policies and procedures to which authors shall adhere.  It is not necessary to justify every policy given to authors; however, a Chair should be able to explain the motive for a policy to any participant requesting to deviate from it.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Chairs should clarify in advance the policies and procedures to which authors shall adhere.  It is not necessary to explain or justify every policy requirement to authors; however, a Chair should be able to explain the motive for a policy to any participant requesting to deviate from it.%0a> %0a
host:1202174476=65.89.177.1
author:1202173833=seago
diff:1202173833:1202173757:minor=78d77%0a%3c %0a80d78%0a%3c %0a82d79%0a%3c %0a84d80%0a%3c %0a
host:1202173833=65.89.177.1
author:1202173757=seago
diff:1202173757:1202173580:minor=49,50c49,50%0a%3c Note that the policy is short, but specially worded.  It defines a "completed manuscript" but does not belabor "preprint" verses "final" manuscripts (which is unnecessary and possibly confusing as part of the call for papers).  It does not include specific upload dates, times, or website names, to keep the policy reasonably generic. It mentions specific characteristics that highlight similarities and potential differences with the AIAA No Paper / No Podium Policy:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Note that the policy is short, but specially worded.  It defines a "completed manuscript" but does not belabor "preprint" verses "final" manuscripts (which is unnecessary and possibly confusing if part of the call for papers).  It does not include specific upload dates, times, or website names, to keep the policy reasonably generic. It mentions specific characteristics that highlight similarities and potential differences with the AIAA No Paper / No Podium Policy:%0a> %0a52d51%0a%3c %0a54d52%0a%3c %0a82d79%0a%3c %0a84d80%0a%3c %0a86d81%0a%3c %0a88d82%0a%3c %0a
host:1202173757=65.89.177.1
author:1202173580=seago
diff:1202173580:1202173429:=49,50c49,50%0a%3c Note that the policy is short, but specially worded.  It defines a "completed manuscript" but does not belabor "preprint" verses "final" manuscripts (which is unnecessary and possibly confusing if part of the call for papers).  It does not include specific upload dates, times, or website names, to keep the policy reasonably generic. It mentions specific characteristics that highlight similarities and potential differences with the AIAA No Paper / No Podium Policy:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Note that the policy is short, but specially worded.  It defines a "completed manuscript" but does not belabor "preprint" verses "final" manuscripts (which is unnecessary and possibly confusing if part of the call for papers).  It does not include specific upload dates or times to keep the policy reasonably generic. It mentions specific characteristics that highlight similarities and potential differences with the AIAA policy:%0a> %0a55,56c55,57%0a%3c Except when referring to the "no-paper / no-podium" policy by title, that the word "manuscript" is preferred over "paper" when referring to technical contributions.  This is to avoid confusion with a physical (paper) copy of contribution a versus the electronic content to be delivered.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> %0a> Except when referring to the "no-paper / no-podium" policy by title, that the word "manuscript" is preferred over "paper".  This is to avoid confusion with a physical (paper) copy of a manuscript versus the electronic content to be delivered.%0a> %0a66,67c67,68%0a%3c !!!! Galveston 2008%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !!! Galveston 2008%0a> %0a87,102c88,103%0a%3c !!!! Mackinac Island 2007 (Ron Proulx, please comment)%0a%3c %0a%3c !!!! Sedona 2007 (Maruthi, please comment)%0a%3c %0a%3c !!!! Keystone 2006 (Alan Lovell, please comment)%0a%3c %0a%3c !!!! Tampa 2005%0a%3c %0a%3c !!!! Copper Mountain 2005%0a%3c %0a%3c !!!! Maui 2004 %0a%3c %0a%3c !!! Preprint Manuscript Deadlines%0a%3c %0a%3c !!! Final Manuscript Deadlines%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !!! Mackinac Island 2007 (Ron Proulx, please comment)%0a> %0a> !!! Sedona 2007 (Maruthi, please comment)%0a> %0a> !!! Keystone 2006 (Alan Lovell, please comment)%0a> %0a> !!! Tampa 2005%0a> %0a> !!! Copper Mountain 2005%0a> %0a> !!! Maui 2004 %0a> %0a> !!!Preprint Manuscript Deadlines%0a> %0a> !!!Final Manuscript Deadlines%0a> %0a
host:1202173580=65.89.177.1
author:1202173429=seago
diff:1202173429:1202172977:=56,57d55%0a%3c Except when referring to the "no-paper / no-podium" policy by title, that the word "manuscript" is preferred over "paper".  This is to avoid confusion with a physical (paper) copy of a manuscript versus the electronic content to be delivered.%0a%3c %0a64,65d61%0a%3c !!!Abstract Deadlines%0a%3c %0a100,103d95%0a%3c !!!Preprint Manuscript Deadlines%0a%3c %0a%3c !!!Final Manuscript Deadlines%0a%3c %0a
host:1202173429=65.89.177.1
author:1202172977=seago
diff:1202172977:1202172643:=45,46c45,46%0a%3c A No Paper / No Podium Policy will be in effect and should be strictly enforced. This policy should be stated in the call for papers, which is first drafted approximately one year before the conference.  The policy for AAS-led meetings is:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> A No Paper / No Podium Policy will be in effect. This policy should be outlined in the call for papers.  The policy for AAS-led meetings is:%0a> %0a49,55c49,57%0a%3c Note that the policy is short, but specially worded.  It defines a "completed manuscript" but does not belabor "preprint" verses "final" manuscripts (which is unnecessary and possibly confusing if part of the call for papers).  It does not include specific upload dates or times to keep the policy reasonably generic. It mentions specific characteristics that highlight similarities and potential differences with the AIAA policy:%0a%3c %0a%3c 1)  The AIAA may not require "presentation by an author" (the AAS policy requires the presenter be an author, not merely a conference attendee).%0a%3c 2)  The AIAA may not announce or enforce a page limit (because the AIAA no longer maintains printed proceedings).%0a%3c 3)  The AIAA may not announce or enforce a paper format (the AIAA has greatly relaxed their format requirements since moving to all-electronic proceedings).%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a---%0a> Note that the AAS policy is specially worded.  It defines a "completed manuscript" but does not belabor "preprint" verses "final" manuscripts which is unnecessary and possibly confusing as part of the call for papers.  It highlights potential differences with the AIAA policy:%0a> %0a> 1)  The AIAA may not require the presenter to be an "author" (the AAS policy does).%0a> 2)  The AIAA may not enforce a page limit (the AIAA no longer maintains printed proceedings).%0a> 3)  The AIAA may not enforce a paper format (the AIAA has greatly relaxed their format requirements since moving to all-electronic proceedings).%0a> %0a> %0a> %0a> %0a
host:1202172977=65.89.177.1
author:1202172643=seago
diff:1202172643:1202172345:=49,50c49,50%0a%3c Note that the AAS policy is specially worded.  It defines a "completed manuscript" but does not belabor "preprint" verses "final" manuscripts which is unnecessary and possibly confusing as part of the call for papers.  It highlights potential differences with the AIAA policy:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Note that the AAS policy is specially worded to indicate potential differences with the AIAA policy:%0a> %0a
host:1202172643=65.89.177.1
author:1202172345=seago
diff:1202172345:1202172249:=45,46c45,46%0a%3c A No Paper / No Podium Policy will be in effect. This policy should be outlined in the call for papers.  The policy for AAS-led meetings is:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> A No Paper / No Podium Policy will be in effect. This should be outlined in the call for papers.  The policy for AAS-led meetings is:%0a> %0a49,50c49,50%0a%3c Note that the AAS policy is specially worded to indicate potential differences with the AIAA policy:%0a%3c %0a---%0a> Note that the AAS policy may be different than the AIAA policy in the following way:%0a> %0a53,57c53,57%0a%3c 3)  The AIAA may not enforce a paper format (the AIAA has greatly relaxed their format requirements since moving to all-electronic proceedings).%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c %0a---%0a> 3)  The AIAA may not enforce a paper format (the AIAA has greatly relaxed their format requirements since moving to all electronic proceedings).%0a> %0a> %0a> %0a> %0a
host:1202172345=65.89.177.1
author:1202172249=seago
diff:1202172249:1202172010:=49,57c49%0a%3c Note that the AAS policy may be different than the AIAA policy in the following way:%0a%3c %0a%3c 1)  The AIAA may not require the presenter to be an "author" (the AAS policy does).%0a%3c 2)  The AIAA may not enforce a page limit (the AIAA no longer maintains printed proceedings).%0a%3c 3)  The AIAA may not enforce a paper format (the AIAA has greatly relaxed their format requirements since moving to all electronic proceedings).%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c %0a---%0a> %0a
host:1202172249=65.89.177.1
author:1202172010=seago
diff:1202172010:1202171503:=42,49d41%0a%3c %0a%3c !! No Paper / No Podium Policy%0a%3c  %0a%3c A No Paper / No Podium Policy will be in effect. This should be outlined in the call for papers.  The policy for AAS-led meetings is:%0a%3c %0a%3c "Completed manuscripts shall be electronically uploaded to the submission site prior to the conference, be no more than twenty (20) pages in length, and conform to the AAS conference paper format. If the completed manuscript is not contributed on time, then there shall be no conference presentation; if there is no conference presentation by an author, then the contributed manuscript shall be withdrawn."%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a
host:1202172010=65.89.177.1
author:1202171503=seago
diff:1202171503:1202171401:=46,47c46,47%0a%3c As a general policy, deadline extensions are not recommended.  Recent experience suggests that abstract deadline and preprint deadline extensions may not be necessary, as long as authors know what to expect.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> As a general policy, deadline extensions are not recommended.  Experience suggests that they may not be necessary.%0a> %0a
host:1202171503=65.89.177.1
author:1202171401=seago
diff:1202171401:1202170347:=51,69c51,56%0a%3c The abstract upload deadline was set for Sunday Oct. 7.  This date was decided to be sufficiently far from the end of the summer conference, as well as past the Labor Day holiday and after the end of the govt. fiscal year ending Sept. 30.  It was also placed on a Sunday to give submitters an additional weekend to prepare their abstracts.%0a%3c %0a%3c The first email announcement was sent three (3) weeks before the deadline.  The second email announcement was sent one week before the deadline.  In the email, we clarified that "preference may be given to the earliest submissions as the number of submissions exceeds the limited number of presentation slots. We also ask that you please be aware that this date has been fully extended for the convenience of contributors and there are no plans to defer this extended deadline due to the constraints of the conference schedule."  We found that stating a "preference to early submissions" was not helpful at getting early submissions.%0a%3c %0a%3c Because of reports of last minute submission problems, we left the abstract submittal system open for an additional 48 hours past the deadline but we did not announce this.  (The extension must be done manually by changing the system date after midnight EST/EDT each day, because the submission web page automatically displays the abstract deadline date to submitting authors.)  We discovered that we received a 10%25 surge in submissions during the 24 hours after the deadline, and very few thereafter.%0a%3c %0a%3c Based on our experience, we can recommend the following procedure:%0a%3c 1)  Set the abstract due date for winter conferences to be the 2nd Sunday after Oct 1.%0a%3c 2)  Announce that this date has been fully extended for the convenience of contributors and there are no plans to defer this extended deadline.%0a%3c 3)  Send the 1st email announcement after Labor Day, and the 2nd email announcement one (1) week before the deadline.%0a%3c 4)  Do not announce an extension, but reset the deadline by advancing it 24 hours if necessary.%0a%3c 5)  Be patient:%0a%3c       a) 24%25 of abstracts were uploaded 3 days before the deadline%0a%3c       b) 64%25 of abstracts were uploaded within 3 days before the deadline%0a%3c       c) 10%25 of abstracts were uploaded 1 day after the deadline%0a%3c       d)  2%25 were accepted late.%0a%3c %0a%3c To the 2%25 who were late, we used this language in responding to their request: "We have no shortage of abstracts and the Technical Chairs have therefore discussed our capacity to accept a late submittal for this conference.  Since our goal is not to discourage submissions from those who are sincerely interested in presenting a paper, we will accept your belated abstract submission for this conference.  However, to do this we require that you promptly follow these instructions..."%0a%3c %0a---%0a> The deadline was set for Sunday Oct. 7.  This was thought to be sufficiently far from the end of the summer conference, past the Labor Day holiday, and after the end of the govt. fiscal year ending Sept. 30.  It was also placed on a Sunday to give submitters the weekend to prepare their abstracts.%0a> %0a> The first email announcement was sent three (3) weeks before the deadline.  The second email announcement was sent one week before the deadline.  In the email, it was clarified that "preference may be given to the earliest submissions as the number of submissions exceeds the limited number of presentation slots. We also ask that you please be aware that this date has been fully extended for the convenience of contributors and there are no plans to defer this extended deadline due to the constraints of the conference schedule."%0a> %0a> Because of reports of last minute submission problems, we left the abstract submittal system open for an additional 48 hours past the deadline.  (This must be done manually after midnight EST/EDT each day, because the submission web page automatically displays the abstract deadline date to submitting authors.)  We discovered that .%0a> %0a
host:1202171401=65.89.177.1
author:1202170347=seago
diff:1202170347:1202169997:=46,47c46,47%0a%3c As a general policy, deadline extensions are not recommended.  Experience suggests that they may not be necessary.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> As a general policy, deadline extensions are not recommended.  %0a> %0a53,56c53,54%0a%3c The first email announcement was sent three (3) weeks before the deadline.  The second email announcement was sent one week before the deadline.  In the email, it was clarified that "preference may be given to the earliest submissions as the number of submissions exceeds the limited number of presentation slots. We also ask that you please be aware that this date has been fully extended for the convenience of contributors and there are no plans to defer this extended deadline due to the constraints of the conference schedule."%0a%3c %0a%3c Because of reports of last minute submission problems, we left the abstract submittal system open for an additional 48 hours past the deadline.  (This must be done manually after midnight EST/EDT each day, because the submission web page automatically displays the abstract deadline date to submitting authors.)  We discovered that .%0a%3c %0a---%0a> No official deadline was announced.  Papers were accepted up to ~20 days after the official deadline (mostly because there was a misprint in the due date somewhere).  Most of the abstracts submitted were in the last couple of days before the deadline.%0a> %0a
host:1202170347=65.89.177.1
author:1202169997=seago
diff:1202169997:1202169530:=9a10%0a> %0a49,52c50%0a%3c !!! Galveston 2008%0a%3c %0a%3c The deadline was set for Sunday Oct. 7.  This was thought to be sufficiently far from the end of the summer conference, past the Labor Day holiday, and after the end of the govt. fiscal year ending Sept. 30.  It was also placed on a Sunday to give submitters the weekend to prepare their abstracts.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> !!! Galveston 2008 (John S., please review make edits)%0a
host:1202169997=65.89.177.1
author:1202169530=seago
diff:1202169530:1202166261:=15,22c15,18%0a%3c We should not have a policy or procedure in place unless it is enforceable.  It is easy to create many well-intentioned rules, but it can be highly inconvenient for participants to follow them and for Chairs to enforce them.  Policy enforcement therefore has less to do with catching or discouraging cheaters, but more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the people who strive to carefully follow the rules because we said there were rules to be followed.  Chairs do well to acknowledge those participants that honorably follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a%3c %0a%3c Participants will sometimes test the established policies and procedures in very imaginative ways, and chairs will be - sooner or later - faced with enforcing them.  If the Chair does not anticipate and attempt to regularly enforce the policies, he may be overwhelmed with trying to manage all of the exceptions that have been granted at the last minute.  He will also set a precedent that elevates the management difficulties for the Chairs of future meetings.%0a%3c %0a%3c Many authors ask the Chairs to "bend the rules" because they do not understand why a procedure exists, or believe a policy is arbitrary.  Chairs should therefore anticipate on how to respond fairly if/when exemptions may be truly necessary.  The most important aspect of trying to understand when an exemption is truly necessary is by careful communication with the author, preferably by email.  An author should be willing and able to carefully, sincerely, and politely explain his predicament in writing, rather than ask for a favor.  Often authors ask for "favors", only to discover that the granting of their request is/was not an adequate response to solve a problem; for example, an author may reflexively request a deadline extension when the details behind his request might otherwise lead a Chair to advise withdrawal.%0a%3c %0a%3c Ultimately, any decision to grant an exemption or extension to these policies and procedures remains with the discretion of the Technical Chairs.  The minimal criterion is that the Chair should be comfortable reporting and justifying a unilateral decision to change policy in person to the larger Space Flight Mechanics Committee.%0a%3c %0a---%0a> We should not have a policy or procedure in place unless it is enforceable.  It is easy to create many well-intentioned rules, but it is inconvenient for participants to follow them and inconvenient for Chairs to enforce them.  Policy enforcement has less to do with catching or discouraging cheaters, but more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the people who strive to carefully follow the rules because we said there were rules to be followed.  Chairs should acknowledge participants that honorably follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a> %0a> Participants will test our policies and procedures in very imaginative ways.  Chairs should anticipate %0a> %0a25,29c21,23%0a%3c Chairs should clarify in advance the policies and procedures to which authors shall adhere.  It is not necessary to explain or justify every policy requirement to authors; however, a Chair should be able to explain the motive for a policy to any participant requesting to deviate from it.%0a%3c %0a%3c The call for papers should only announce basic policies and procedures that are minimally necessary to successfully complete the paper submission process.  It should include, for example, reference to the fact that there are paper format and page limit requirements, since authors may need to anticipate requirements for sponsor approvals in advance of the abstract deadline.  It should not include, for example, the registration fee cancellation policy.  The announcement of more detailed policies (otherwise irrelevant to the call for papers) may be done once an abstract has been accepted.%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a---%0a> Chairs should clarify in advance the policies and procedures to which authors shall adhere.  The call for papers should include policies and procedures minimally necessary to successfully complete the paper submission process.  It should include a very basic statement that there are paper format and page limit requirements, since authors may need to get sponsor approvals well in advance of the abstract deadline for both the abstract and completed paper.  More detailed explanation of policies may be done via email %0a> %0a> %0a47,48c41,42%0a%3c As a general policy, deadline extensions are not recommended.  %0a%3c %0a---%0a> As a general policy, extensions are not recommended.  However, the final call on deadline extensions falls to the Technical Chair.  %0a> %0a
host:1202169530=65.89.177.1
author:1202166261=seago
diff:1202166261:1201872364:=12,23c12,13%0a%3c %0a%3c !!Enforcement of Policies and Procedures%0a%3c %0a%3c We should not have a policy or procedure in place unless it is enforceable.  It is easy to create many well-intentioned rules, but it is inconvenient for participants to follow them and inconvenient for Chairs to enforce them.  Policy enforcement has less to do with catching or discouraging cheaters, but more to do with being fair to the 99%25 of the people who strive to carefully follow the rules because we said there were rules to be followed.  Chairs should acknowledge participants that honorably follow the rules by conducting minimal enforcement.%0a%3c %0a%3c Participants will test our policies and procedures in very imaginative ways.  Chairs should anticipate %0a%3c %0a%3c !!Announcement of Policies and Procedures%0a%3c %0a%3c Chairs should clarify in advance the policies and procedures to which authors shall adhere.  The call for papers should include policies and procedures minimally necessary to successfully complete the paper submission process.  It should include a very basic statement that there are paper format and page limit requirements, since authors may need to get sponsor approvals well in advance of the abstract deadline for both the abstract and completed paper.  More detailed explanation of policies may be done via email %0a%3c %0a%3c %0a---%0a> What is the scope of this document?%0a> %0a37,43c27,28%0a%3c !! Deadlines/Extensions%0a%3c %0a%3c There are three (3) submission deadlines that Technical Chairs must maintain:  abstracts, preprints, and final manuscripts.%0a%3c %0a%3c As a general policy, extensions are not recommended.  However, the final call on deadline extensions falls to the Technical Chair.  %0a%3c %0a%3c For reference, abstract submittal deadline extensions in past AAS meetings have been:%0a---%0a> !! Deadlines/Extentions%0a> As a general policy, the subcommittee does not recommend issuing extensions.  The final call on deadline extensions and acceptance of late papers falls to the Technical Chair.  For reference, abstract submittal deadline extensions in past AAS meetings have been:%0a
host:1202166261=70.91.41.73
author:1201872364=bnaasz
diff:1201872364:1201872364:=1,50d0%0a%3c This is the Technical Policy and Procedure Document of the Technical Administration Subcommittee.  It is being compiled per the request of the Subcommittee chair.  %0a%3c %0a%3c (Bo Naasz) I took a stab at an outline, mostly to demonstrate how to do it.  Haven't included any of the stuff in the [[http://space-flight.org/manuals/manuals.html | The Summer Manual]].%0a%3c %0a%3c (:toc:)%0a%3c %0a%3c ! Document Charter%0a%3c Work towards the development of a technical policy and procedure document where we record the details of how we conduct the technical aspects of conferences.  Goal is to have a completed document for Savannah. (Shannon�s comment: If the document is completed by Honolulu, then can provide to Felix�s subcommittee for comments, between Honolulu and Savannah and then submit jointly to the full SFM committee for ratification.)%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c ! Scope%0a%3c What is the scope of this document?%0a%3c %0a%3c ! Contributing Editors%0a%3c Alan Lovell volunteered to be the point person.  %0a%3c These people volunteered to support the effort:  %0a%3c * John Seago%0a%3c * Maruthi Akella%0a%3c * Bo Naasz %0a%3c * Ryan Russell%0a%3c * Danielle Mortari%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c ! Technical Policies%0a%3c These are the policies%0a%3c !! Deadlines/Extentions%0a%3c As a general policy, the subcommittee does not recommend issuing extensions.  The final call on deadline extensions and acceptance of late papers falls to the Technical Chair.  For reference, abstract submittal deadline extensions in past AAS meetings have been:%0a%3c !!! Galveston 2008 (John S., please review make edits)%0a%3c No official deadline was announced.  Papers were accepted up to ~20 days after the official deadline (mostly because there was a misprint in the due date somewhere).  Most of the abstracts submitted were in the last couple of days before the deadline.%0a%3c %0a%3c !!! Mackinac Island 2007 (Ron Proulx, please comment)%0a%3c %0a%3c !!! Sedona 2007 (Maruthi, please comment)%0a%3c %0a%3c !!! Keystone 2006 (Alan Lovell, please comment)%0a%3c %0a%3c !!! Tampa 2005%0a%3c %0a%3c !!! Copper Mountain 2005%0a%3c %0a%3c !!! Maui 2004 %0a%3c %0a%3c !! Next Policy%0a%3c %0a%3c %0a%3c ! Technical Procedures%0a%3c These are the procedures%0a%3c %0a%3c !! Next Procedure%0a\ No newline at end of file%0a
host:1201872364=128.183.112.141