Proposed AEC Structure Guidelines


A team consisting of Matthias Hauswirth, Steve Blackburn, Jan Vitek, and Shriram Krishnamurthi (with much of the impetus from Matthias) has tried to codify guidelines that we believe reflect a good practice for structuring AEC chairs. The goal of these guidelines is to create a process that is smooth and transfers knowledge across years:

Selection of the observer (and thus future co-chair) should consider these guidelines:

Additionally, we recommend that program chairs of the associated conferences consider putting one of the two co-chairs [I, C] on the PC, possibly with a reduced reviewing load. This enables the co-chair to participate in the PC process and take notes on the expectations set by the paper.


We have been populating the AEC entirely with either PhD students or very recent graduates (post-docs). We contact a small set of researchers who we feel represent the standards we wish to enforce, and ask them to suggest students. Almost all have replied affirmatively (a handful even offering themselves in addition!). Our reasoning for using the student population is four-fold:

  1. they may be more familiar with the mechanics of modern-day software tools;
  2. they may have more time to conduct detailed experiments with the artifacts;
  3. they might be more responsive to the short deadlines; and,
  4. participating in the review process might give them some perspective on the importance of artifacts, and influence the people likely to become the next generation of leaders.

In practice, these student-constituted AECs have exceeded even our high expectations.