Minutes: International Scientific Committee Meeting 3 Date/Time: 29 September 2000, 09:20 - 10:40 Place: IOI 2000, Beijing, China Status: Approved (11 May 2001, Tampere, Finland) Present: Isto Aho Host n Kyung-Yong Chwa Host n+1 Gyula Horvath Elected Ian Munro Elected Jyrki Nummenmaa Host n Tom Verhoeff Elected (chair) Baolin Yin Host n-1 Richard Forster (taking minutes) Mohammad Ghodsi (outgoing, present until end of point 4) Apologies: Prof. Wenhu Wu (outgoing), Ismail Hakki Toroslu (outgoing) 1. The meeting was opened by Tom Verhoeff. An agenda was presented, along with a copy of the approved minutes of the ISC meeting in Antalya during IOI'99. 2. The agenda was aproved. 3. It was pointed out that there were, currently, no details in the ISC regulations regarding changing the chair. Tom Verhoeff expressed his willingness to continue, to which there was consent. 4.1. Thanks were given to the outgoing committee members. Mohammad Ghodsi was given the floor. He thought the ISC was a very important idea and sees a good scientific future for the IOI. He felt it important that the submitting of tasks from other (i.e. non-host) countries should be encouraged, and that the ISC could provide information to new countries. 4.2. New members (Isto Aho, Kyung-Yong Chwa and Ian Munro) were welcomed and various operational details given. 4.3. It was reported that the IOI community were in general agreement with the draft competition guidelines. They had been raised in IC, who also agreed in general but were reluctant to approve formally, due in part to its length and some unnamed controversial aspects. 5. Confidentiality was raised. Firstly with respect to 'time', specifically with regard to the issue of alternative questions which may be passed on to a future IOI. Secondly, committee members who attend the 'review meeting' should complete their training commitments prior to the review. 6. The following opinions were requested and expressed regarding the pros/cons of IOI 2000 and what could/should be done in future (N.B.: These were personal opinions, although many were expressed by more than one individual): 6.1 The GA appreciated the technical handouts. The majority would like to see them after question time. 6.2 The review meeting had been vital. A lot of what was accomplished would have been impossible by e-mail. The minimum period for this meeting should be 5 days. 6.3 The testing of grading needs to be done on actual tasks to ensure grading is sophisticated enough. 6.4 There needs to be a test of the grading system at an appropriate scale, although there are problems in testing a large system (incl. many competition computers). 6.5 A practice competition would help. 6.6 Turning on machines needs careful staggering to avoid network problems. 6.7 Whilst there were still some issues with wording / formulation, improvements had been felt this year. 6.8 "Early is good", some things were a little too late this year. 6.9 The pattern of working, SC with ISC, was successful. 6.10 Baolin Yin felt, as host, that he would have appreciated more concrete guidelines for the Host SC to follow. 6.11 There were few submissions from outside China. The ISC should promote external submission. 6.12 Last minute changes should be avoided, since they can affect many parts of the system. 6.13 A native English speaker is required for any last minute phrase changes. 6.14 The way objections are handled could be changed to appear better to the GA, for example by providing feedback to the GA on the SC's responses. 7. No decisions taken. 8.1. Jyrki Nummenmaa summarized about what the GA had expressed their positive opinion for next year (though this was not in an official meeting): a practice competition, source code submission, Linux in general and that input may be through procedure calls. The availability of Windows as a development environment was required. He would like as much material as possible when setting up the Finnish competition system. Baolin Yin promised a CD of data would be available. 8.2. Tom Verhoeff will produce an "evaluation report" based on investigation of GA-questionnaire results. 8.3. The proposal by Poland / Germany (presented at GA meeting) would be discussed by e-mail. 8.4. Feedback on the guidelines, especially by the new members, was requested. (Including, to what extent they will apply.) These would be communicated to Jyrki Nummenmaa and Tom Verhoeff, who would them communicate and update them. 8.5. It was felt that a review meeting in Finland was necessary, around April/May. 8.6. Some facilities are necessary for the ISC at an IOI. Firstly provision for ISC members to arrive in advance and meet with the SC, and additional time to prepare an evaluation report. Secondly Internet access. Thirdly a scheduled ISC meeting. Finally accommodation should not be shared with anyone outside the ISC (for reasons of confidentiality). 8.7. Any "Call for Tasks" should include information on confidentiality. It was suggested that it should also be in more than one step (e.g. detailed tests would not be required with the initial submission.) Jyrki Nummenmaa indicated such a call for tasks exists, and that tasks rejected early on would be returned to the author. 8.9. Jyrki Nummenmaa will provide information on the new environment as soon as possible. Hopefully in a few months time; not earlier than the end of the year, but guaranteed before the review meeting. Information will be supplied in stages. 9. In the past, disqualification has been decided on a case by case basis. It should be stated who is concerned with the handling procedure, such as delegation complaints. 10. Meeting closed.