sigmetrics-workflow

SIGMETRICS Workflow

Use this as the project-management skill for a SIGMETRICS submission. SIGMETRICS runs **three

rolling deadlines a year (summer / fall / winter) into the POMACS** journal, so the calendar is

a choice among deadlines, not a single annual scramble. Replace every date with the current

official timetable and work backwards from the abstract-registration cutoff, which precedes each

paper deadline by about a week.

SIGMETRICS has rotating per-edition General and Program Chairs (appointed by the SIGMETRICS

executive committee) rather than a standing conference editor-in-chief; POMACS is open access

with no APC, and at least one author presents each accepted paper. Re-check the current

organizing-committee page rather than carrying a name forward.

The rolling-deadline advantage

Unlike a once-a-year venue, SIGMETRICS lets you aim at the next deadline that fits your

evidence. Two consequences:

• Missing a deadline costs ~4 months, not a year — the next rolling deadline is a quarter away.

Do not rush a proof or a measurement campaign to hit summer if fall gives you a clean result.

• Publication timing matters: summer/fall acceptances appear in POMACS before the

conference; a winter acceptance publishes in the following issue. Choose the deadline whose

POMACS timing and presentation slot fit your goals.

Milestones

• Venue fit: confirm SIGMETRICS over IMC/SIGCOMM/NSDI/a theory venue, and the correct track

(sigmetrics-topic-selection).

• Evidence lock: freeze the model and assumptions, complete the proofs, and finish the

simulation/measurement that validates them.

• Abstract registration: submit real title, abstract, authors, conflicts, and track by the

earlier registration deadline.

• Submission: upload the anonymized acmsmall PDF and the artifact reference by the paper

deadline (23:59 AoE).

• Reviews: triage each comment by criterion (rigor, proof correctness, assumption validity,

evidence, novelty, reproducibility).

• One-Shot Revision (if issued): close the entire required-changes list and resubmit to one of

the two subsequent deadlines — a single shot, re-read by the original reviewers.

• Accept + shepherding: incorporate the shepherd's required changes into the final POMACS

version.

• Publication + presentation: POMACS camera-ready, artifact/badges if the cycle offers them,

register, and present.

Backward plan from a paper deadline

| Weeks out (heuristic) | Performance-evaluation milestone |

|---|---|

| 10+ | Model and assumptions fixed; main theorems stated; measurement/trace secured |

| 8 | Proofs complete and internally checked; simulator built with logged seeds |

| 6 | Analysis-vs-simulation agreement established; baselines chosen and tuned |

| 4 | Full draft in acmsmall; artifact (model, simulator, trace scripts) assembled and anonymized |

| 3 | Internal mock review by a performance-evaluation reader (check a proof case and an assumption) |

| 2 | Assumption-validity section hardened; related-work delta sharpened; 20-page budget met |

| 1 | Anonymity sweep on PDF and artifact; abstract registered |

| 0 | Paper + artifact reference on the correct per-deadline HotCRP site |

These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current call and the

per-deadline HotCRP deadlines page, never to a previous cycle.

The 12-month bar and cycle-hopping

• A reject cannot be resubmitted to any SIGMETRICS deadline for 12 months from the initial

submission — a structural reject costs a full year at SIGMETRICS, so route a fundamentally

reframed paper elsewhere meanwhile rather than idling.

• A One-Shot Revision is not a reject: it resubmits to a subsequent deadline within the rolling

process. Budget the revision window to close the whole list in one shot.

Failure modes by stage

• A proof still has an open case at week 4 forces a rushed appendix nobody has checked — the

classic rigor reject in the making.

• An unvalidated assumption (claiming M/G/1 without fitting the workload) invites the "does the

model match reality?" objection that a One-Shot Revision then has to repair.

• Leaving the simulator/trace scripts to the final week is how a cluster path or a

provenance string leaks identity under double-anonymity.

• Rushing a One-Shot Revision into the nearer deadline and leaving a listed item half-done turns

a winnable single-shot into a reject.

Coordination notes

• Assign one owner for the proofs/appendix and another for the simulator/measurement and the

anonymity sweep; shared ownership is how both slip.

• Archive the exact submitted PDF, artifact, and (later) the required-changes list and response —

the single-shot revision must close that list precisely.

Output format

[Current stage] idea / model+proof / evidence / registration / submitted / one-shot revision / accepted
[Chosen deadline] summer / fall / winter <cycle>, and its abstract + paper dates (source)
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Risk register] <proof completeness / assumption validity / anonymity / reproducibility / page budget>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>