We have a very exicting program for PASTE! Here is the list of
Note that we have ample time for demos, and welcome all attendees, not only authors of accepted papers, to demonstrate their tools. We also have time for 5 minute madness: anyone in the audience is welcome to take up to five minutes to tell the audience about their work (again, not just authors of accepted papers).
We also have two outstanding keynote speakers:
Workshop: Sunday-Monday, November 9-10, 2008
PASTE is a high-powered workshop that meets roughly every 18 months, alternating between programming language and software engineering venues and intending to serve as a bridge between the two. This is the eighth workshop in the series. The venue brings together the program analysis, software tools, and software engineering communities to focus on applications of program analysis techniques in software tools. It's high-powered because the content is generally novel, interesting, and provocative; but by virtue of being a workshop, we have the freedom to experiment with the format, and PASTE frequently does.
This year PASTE will take place in Atlanta, GA, USA, co-located with ACM SIGSOFT Foundations of Software Engineering.
PASTE 2008 will provide a forum for the presentation of exciting research, empirical results, and new directions in areas including (but not limited to):
PASTE will be a true workshop, with research presentations, organized discussions, opportunities for all attendees to paricipate, and ample time for debate.
PASTE is eligible for SIGSOFT CAPS funding. Please note, however, that we do not have anything to do with CAPS. Please refer all your questions to those named on the CAPS Web site.
We are grateful to Microsoft Research for supporting student attendance at PASTE.
Brown University (co-chair)
Michal Young, University of Oregon (co-chair)
University of Toronto
Rajiv Gupta, Univ. of California, Riverside
Ranjit Jhala, UC San Diego
Trevor Jim, AT&T Labs-Research
Andreas Podelski, University of Freiburg, Germany
William Pugh, Univ. of Maryland
Atanas Rountev, Ohio State University
Eelco Visser, Delft University of Technology
Papers must be submitted in PDF format and printable on US Letter size paper. Papers submitted to PASTE must be original work, must not substantially duplicate previous work, and must not be under simultaneous review elsewhere. Violation of any of these criteria will be sufficient grounds for automatic rejection. Please adhere to the re-publication policies of ACM and SIGPLAN. At least one author of every accepted paper must register and attend the event to present their work.
PASTE will have both short (3-page) and long (6-page) papers in the ACM paper format (you can use the alternate style if you wish). The program committee will select papers based on technical quality, relevance to the PASTE community, and ability to inspire new research.
These page limits exclude the formal bibliography. Everything else—appendices, related work discussion, etc.—must fit within the page limit for your chosen length, but the actual bibliography (list of citations) can take up as much additional length as you wish (though in practice we would be shocked if you took up more than one more page...). We assume these instructions are clear enough but, if you are in doubt, you are welcome to seek clarification from the chairs. Papers that flout these limits will be summarily rejected.
For either length, a paper can be either a regular submission (the default) or be designated an RFF, a new category described below.
PASTE serves two goals. To some it is a peer-reviewed conference whose papers appear in the ACM Digital Library for archival purposes. For others it is a high-quality workshop with plenty of opportunity to get feedback on work that is in progress. We want to support both constituencies.
By default, PASTE papers will be treated as formal submissions, be judged on technical merit, and accepted papers will be published by the ACM to appear in the Digital Library. However, authors who only want to get feedback—and retain the right to submit the same material to another venue later—can instead submit a paper as a Request for Feedback (RFF). An RFF is expressly not a “publication”; it should be viewed only as a request for time to present at the workshop and obtain feedback. The PC will judge RFFs primarily for their presentability, not their technical merits, so authors are expected to not list RFFs as formal publications.
We did consider making all short publications automatically be RFFs, and all full publications regular submissions. We decided against this for two reasons. First, it is indeed possible to have an archivable result expressed in very few pages (as some classic papers prove), and we want to encourage such brevity. Second, the decision of whether the submission should result in an archival publication should rest with the authors.
All RFF papers must bear the prefix “Request For Feedback:” in their title, and must retain this title in the final versions.