radius * Radius where context is used. Time Tied to ICCV.

rainy * The rainy season is December/January, otherwise there is no difference

raise * deadline will be known soon and some attempt is being made to raise some

raised * 8. ICCV Single Track? E. Grimson. Eric raised the issue of how many
* Issues raised were Technical Council (a bit more freedom than
* raised the issue of the $1500 dues we pay to IAPR and the cost of

ram * Motion: (Ram Nevatia) That we reccommend to IAPR that the US not be
* Ram: Not sure we have the critical mass to become a society, most

rama * Item 3. CVPR89. (Rama Chellappa) 330+ registered, thanks to John
* The meeting ended with a thanks to Worthy, John and Rama for the success

ramesh * Agenda Item #3b: Ramesh Jain was awarded his certificate for

range * of conference facilities, each with a range of hotels from $25-$100.
* Rooms range from $15-$150, with the University connections. ACCV (Asian

ranging * Ranging workshop (Bir Bhanu) on October 9 with 9 presentations, then 4
* recognition, all in one place. This gives a conference ranging from AI

rate * acceptance rate is currently less than T-PAMI and the review is so much
* signed (Omni Park Central, NYC), the rates will be a bit higher than
* the cost being covered by the package and library rates).
* The room rates will be $145.

rather * Computer Society level rather than the PAMI-TC level. CAIA-89 may have
* Maryland in January. Rather than the entire committee (due to the
* multiple. Robotics came from several societies rather than CS.
* provided at cost (rather than sales prices) if they were available.

ratio * rejection ratio. (T. Boult) Posters could be submitted as posters.

rcde * DARPA: RCDE for aerial images and IUE (an advanced RCDE). Asked for

real * real alternative places to eat, but the hotel may be able to work
* the call for papers is already out, what it real means, how much

really * End of August. Really means: Document reognition. Calls for
* June 20-23 at MIT. Paper deadline Nov 15 1994 -- really. Program
* Q: Limits on PAMI pages? Really come from total subscriptions.
* really want to have one. (Steve) At the moment we do not have the
* Steve: R&A really was formed by the efforts of one person.

reason * () Deal with the number of papers, reason for multiple tracks.

reasonable * that a reasonable fraction of the committee meet to decide on the

reasoning * for special issues in AI, Search in Vision, probabilistic reasoning,
* Future special issues on Probabilistic Reasoning, Integration of
* Graphics, Probabilistic Reasoning. Currently about 1 paper per day. Of

reccomend * A motion (by T. Boult) to reccomend to the committee that the printed

reccommend * Motion: (Ram Nevatia) That we reccommend to IAPR that the US not be

receive * non-US participants failed to receive the newsletter. The mailings cost about
* the non-US PAMI members may receive the contents both from their national

received * both, CVPR received accepted ECCV titles.)
* meeting in Hawaii was well received.

recent * the most recent newsletter did not.

reception * Breaks 40, Reception 20, Banquet 45, Misc 6.

recipients * for the award. The award is given at most once a year, past recipients include

recogniition * the Harry Goode award to Azriel Rosenfeld in recogniition of an

recognitin * 2. 2nd Document Analysis and Recognitin Conference: R. Haralick

recognition * (where is PR?). There is not much on Pattern Recognition in the
* 1. International Workshop on Face Recognition: T. Huang.
* 2. International Workshop on Graphics Recognition: R. Kasturi
* Anaysis. Character recognition, engineering drawings, and music are the
* Comment that no Pattern Recognition in 1995.
* contributions to the fields of pattern recognition, image processing,
* indicate more specific topics within Pattern Recognition (High dimensional
* Processing, Pattern Recognition Systems, and Computer Vision. A lot of
* Q: Definition of Pattern Recognition -- at ICPR the Pattern Recognition subconference. Desire to have
* Q: Why just face recognition? Want to keep it small so just
* Recognition
* Recognition for local arrangements (Terry Boult).
* Recognition J Shurmann (R Haralick).
* recognition not diluted by others. But expression may enter in.
* Recognition papers, but the ones submitted were bad.
* recognition, all in one place. This gives a conference ranging from AI
* some emphasis on the fact that Pattern Recognition papers are acceptable. Need to
* to balance Pattern Recognition and IP. Over the years, Computer
* Vision. (i.e. drop Pattern Recognition from the name). Seconded (Shaprio).
* want Pattern Recognition papers or not. Image Processing has a new conference. Issue is whether
21 for recognition.

recognition; * in Object Recognition; Multi-Dim medical analysis(F)) Still space

recognize * meeting to recognize the efforts of Gerard Medioni and S. Negahdaripour.

recommendation * recommendation of the current chair. T. Huang will be proposed as the

recommending * IEEE is recommending that all TCs have some structure that will make

reconsider * Motion: That the program committee reconsider that the Prog Comm
* reconsider the policy on duplicate submissions. (Keeping the
* Steve: Discuss last year's proposal that we should reconsider

recycle * number of pages. Find a way to recycle the money to the TC by

reduce * January 1991, added new editors (16 associate editors) to reduce the
* may reduce the attendance somewhat.
* tracks, number of days, length of papers) to reduce future outside

reduced * introduced submissions in final form. This reduced greatly the
* Visa problems have been reduced from the ICPR attempt. Beijing has a number

reduces * pages in final form. This reduces the lag time and controls the

regard * changes based on discussions at this meeting (with regard to conference
* who is a member and who can vote. IEEE does not regard this as a

regarding * A discussion regarding dues for membership in the TC. This is now being
* A question regarding the weighting down of some reviewers since they
* changes, control of conferences, and possible TAB actions regarding the
* Concerns regarding the cost were addressed. The hotel is $120 in 1997
* interest, can convert it to HTML. A discussion regarding paper or
* no one who is strong). Q: regarding who was on the ProgCom -- not
* Question regarding the dates (M-W before Thanksgiving), Gerard is
* Questions regarding local expenses: under $70 for hotel is possible,
* regarding membership. It is now possible to join through
* regarding the sudden change in ICPR from most submitted papers to
* TC will prepare a proposal regarding conferences that addresses these
11 for regarding.

registered * 618 registered. The 1992 submission is a 2500 word abstract and will
* and 100 members (around 600 registered so far). From 24 countries and
* Eric noted that half of the 600 registered were in the dorm at MIT.
* Item 3. CVPR89. (Rama Chellappa) 330+ registered, thanks to John
* registered, 18 or 30 submissions were accepted.
* So far, there are 316 pre registered and 53 walk-ins (369). An
6 for registered.

registration * Agenda item #2: CVPR91: Current registration at about 290.
* registration 15, CS Admin 24, Contigeny 17, Treasureer and bank 5,

regular * America) even if ICCV is held and to get ICCV on a regular stable
* These go with regular newsletter.

regularly * Motion: (By T. Pavlidis) That regularly held meeting have a large

rejected * both were below 2, it was rejected. The remaining 350 papers were
* equivalent papers were rejected on the grounds of prior conference
* with substantially the same material by rejected automatically.

rejecting * qualified people. Was it the history of the meeting (rejecting past

rejection * cynicism that rejection means the paper is good). Issue of
* rejection ratio. (T. Boult) Posters could be submitted as posters.

related * discussion of the lack of "AI" in PAMI, AI related conferences, name
* papers are available at CVPR. Mandate related to ICDR, but in the
* Several related items were then discussed:
* the TCs. Other journals in CS are less related others are

relation * CVPR), the breadth of PAMI, the relation of CVPR to IAPR and ICPR.

relationship * bigger and have some of what we want. Current relationship is

relevant * what, and how relevant the issue is in the first place.

remain * Pages will remain constant over the near term.
* should remain high. The vote on the proposal (as modified by the report from

remaining * both were below 2, it was rejected. The remaining 350 papers were

remember * You remember the Hawaii meeting and we could consider some resort

reminded * Comments: (J Mundy) Reminded that some past meetings with weak reviews

removal * Changes made in the executive committee (Section 3.2) were removal after

remove * Remove M-D.

renewal * Discussion: the TC chair appoints all delegates, with nominal renewal every

reognition * End of August. Really means: Document reognition. Calls for

replacing * (replacing C. Suen). The backlog has decreased due to the increased
* editorial board added N. Ahuja (replacing W. Thompson) and H. Baird

report * #4. Report ICCV 1993 (Huang) (Faugeras) In Berlin, Attended by
* #5. Report on 1992 Applications of Computer Vision (Bhanu). First WS,
* Agenda item #1: R. Bajcsy gave a report on ICCV-II: There were 306 papers
* Agenda item #2: No report on the Time-varying Imagery Workshop.
* Agenda item #3: R. Chellappa gave a report on CVPR-89: 327 papers have been
* Agenda item #8: E. Riseman gave the report on the study of holding ICCV-III
* be out in the winter with a CVPR report, updated bylaws, etc. From the
* Discussion on who they would report to?
* in <3 months. A citation analysis and impact report (by IEEE for all
* Report on should we form a society. Issues from last year: PAMI
* should remain high. The vote on the proposal (as modified by the report from
11 for report.

reported * Agenda item #7: H. Freeman reported that ICPR will be held in Atlantic City on
* from Europe as the program chairs. [Y. Shirai reported that the assignment

reports * III. Reports:
* Reports:

representation * 250-280. The only problem was the representation of US universities
* disscussion indicated some concern in the international representation

representative * and J. Sklansky was added as a US representative. J. Aggarwal was elected as
* decrease and representatives.

request * submissions and then to request that they withdraw the paper from one
* We will allow members to request a no paper option.

requested * if requested.
* was requested. The allocation is 1/3 of the conference surplus plus some more

requests * 10 issues). This accounts for some of the requests to shorten the

requirement * current call includes a requirement for stating the differences
* requirement for new unpublished work already stated in the call for
* requirement, but sent to a strange list. An electronic list was

requires * can you tell if it is different (e.g. if it requires effort to
* in return, but it requires a lot of work for the people doing it.
* program, it requires a comment on other submissions. The program
* the conference numbers are decreasing so the CS requires budgeting

research * an research centers. Deemed to be a success. There was a meeting

resolve * Motion: Shafer: That we resolve that the EC of the PAMI TC
* IEEE to resolve this.

resort * Seven Springs Ski Resort.
* You remember the Hawaii meeting and we could consider some resort

respond * and was invited to respond.

responded * newsletter. When electronic was offered, only 100 responded. The

responsibility * AFIPS dissolved, the IEEE-Computer Society assumed responsibility
* Motion: (W.E.L. Grimson) -- It is the responsibility of the program
* week before. Finiancial Responsibility with ICPR, this is an

responsible * Discussion centered on determining differences, who is responsible for
* TC is responsible to mail out the IPAR newsletter. Currently twice

rest * with most of the money covering the newsletter and the rest for travel

restricctions * Q: Last year, IEEE puts great restricctions on meetings and PAMI

restrictions * restrictions) from the East Coast. Access is through Miami or San Juan.

result * The result of the discussion is that the executive committee of the PAMI

resulted * 60 attended and resulted in a small surplus.

results * 1, results by Middle of September. Innovation is that the
* 1. Membership Results: R. Krishnan / L. Shapiro
* allow for about 70-80 papers, or the posters which results in about
* results only
* The selection was based on the results of the blind review process, with

retain * retain more conference income, but decisions were postponed until the

retained * to the authors, be retained was passed with no opposition.

retired * was given to A. Rosenfeld at ICPR-88 in Rome. T. Pavlidis retired from

return * California (San Francisco) (return from 1995). Dyer/Ikeuchi as
* in return, but it requires a lot of work for the people doing it.

returned * A motion (by E. Grimson) that the current format, with written reviews returned

review * acceptance rate is currently less than T-PAMI and the review is so much
* are problems. Please to review in a timely manner. Authors should
* at the International House (downtown). The review procedures will be
* discussed and a possible third review was done (20 to each member over 1
* groups will go over papers in more detail. The review form is
* hard to get reviews to authors. 80% first review in 6 months. 20%
* IEEE-CS members. The first review is usually in <6 months with some
* including review procedures, size (number of papers or people), format,
* review time. Spring 1992 issue on Computer Vision and Computer
* submitted and have been sent to the program committee for review, with
* The goal is 6/12/18 (6 months for the first review, 12 months for the
* The selection was based on the results of the blind review process, with
12 for review.

reviewers * A question regarding the weighting down of some reviewers since they
* for reviewers to do their reviews.
* keep other editors informed of the use of reviewers.
* no invited papers. The full list of reviewers was not in the proceedings as
* on a single day. Each was sent to 3 reviewers, a subcommittee of
* papers submitted, 2 program committee reviewers, L. Davis, R. Jain and
* reviewers are used (more than the committee) for 311 papers, 197 US, 23
* reviewers with blind reviewing. A July 11 meeting will finalize the
* reviewers, but it is not clear is it helped. [Comment on double blind
* the reviewers come from more than the program committee and that it need
* There were 491 papers submitted, 2 reviewers for each paper with at
* were submitted and 3 reviewers will be used. About 35 are expected.
12 for reviewers.

reviewing * reviewers with blind reviewing. A July 11 meeting will finalize the
* with the standard blind reviewing process. 28 of the 43 committee

reviews * A motion (by E. Grimson) that the current format, with written reviews returned
* Comments: (J Mundy) Reminded that some past meetings with weak reviews
* Discussion: not wanting quotas, but the reviews were done by
* do 3 reviews for all submissions. PAMI subscriptions have decreased
* for reviewers to do their reviews.
* hard to get reviews to authors. 80% first review in 6 months. 20%
* meeting, if both reviews gave a 4 or above, the paper was accepted. If
* members and expects to do blind reviews.
* only make hard decisions after the reviews have done most of the
* similar to ICCV-2 (blind reviews, program committee, etc.), with the
* submissions number about 450/year and get 3 reviews.
* the 3 reviews, 2 come quickly, the third takes time.
12 for reviews.

revised * Agenda item #10: The revised by-laws, distributed at ICCV-II, were

rico * (which is cheaper to stay and get to). Puerto Rico? (St Thomas is

right *