wait * Not giving the process enough time, and should wait. Three

walk * So far, there are 316 pre registered and 53 walk-ins (369). An

want * bigger and have some of what we want. Current relationship is
* Comment: (Freeman) Point missed, did this group want to have an
* decision last year. Just because people want it doesn't mean it is
* Linda: We do use some of the pieces, do we want to provide the
* members want. No decisions made.
* of us want to to be with IEEE, to have low cost journal. Maybe
* Q: Why just face recognition? Want to keep it small so just
* really want to have one. (Steve) At the moment we do not have the
* want Pattern Recognition papers or not. Image Processing has a new conference. Issue is whether
* you want other workshops get the ideas in. Some supported by the
10 for want.

wanted * Issues with the computer society. Initially they wanted to budget
* this meeting at 250 Eric wanted 450 and the CS finally did allow 350.

wanting * Discussion: not wanting quotas, but the reviews were done by

wants * (Not friendly, wants to have it broader).

was * (Rosenfeld) Newsletter was discussed earlier, crazy mailing list
* 250-280. The only problem was the representation of US universities
* a North American location should be presented at that time. There was
* A plan for Pennsylvania in 1994 was mentioned, and T. Henderson proposed
* Agenda Item #3a: Morphology workshop, Ed Delp. Was going to be this
* Agenda Item #3b: Ramesh Jain was awarded his certificate for
* Agenda Item #4: ICCV-93. The call for papers was available at CVPR.
* an research centers. Deemed to be a success. There was a meeting
* and J. Sklansky was added as a US representative. J. Aggarwal was elected as
* and was invited to respond.
* between 1991 and 1992 was cut 40% due to the new formula that ties the
* both were below 2, it was rejected. The remaining 350 papers were
* Boykin stated that the CS policy was that proceedings would be
* budget was approved.
* Comment that posters had 2 pages -- that was low. Possible same
* discussed and a possible third review was done (20 to each member over 1
* discussion, it was withdrawn by the maker.
* Executive Board for decision making. History, there was an
* expenses were about $13.4K sinced it was budgeted at 55 people.
* for later meetings. ICCV-2 was close to break even or a small loss.
* Further discussion included why the meeting was scheduled so close to
* Hotels run around $100 on the sea front. Proposal was June, but that
* in the date was proposed.
* international issues at a national meeting, it was pointed out that the
* meeting in Hawaii was well received.
* meeting, if both reviews gave a 4 or above, the paper was accepted. If
* members attended the selection meeting. The final total was 89 papers
* newsletter. When electronic was offered, only 100 responded. The
* No explaination of why Eric was told otherwise.
* no invited papers. The full list of reviewers was not in the proceedings as
* no one who is strong). Q: regarding who was on the ProgCom -- not
* of the proceedings, Eric was told that any more would cost
* on a single day. Each was sent to 3 reviewers, a subcommittee of
* papers this allowed, but there was still strong support for the
* Passed with 2 opposed. Uncountable was for.
* Patrick: How things have changed? Year ago budget was $4K, now
* publications) showed that PAMI was the highest of all Transactions.
* qualified people. Was it the history of the meeting (rejecting past
* requirement, but sent to a strange list. An electronic list was
* Shirai) was Yes:35, No: 22, Abstain 6, with a strong minority support for
* size of short papers be increased was passed: Yes 25, No 18, Abstain 6.
* Steve: R&A really was formed by the efforts of one person.
* submitted, 44 accepted, + 2 invited. The income was about $20K, and the
* surplus. A large part is newsletters, but the editor was
* The Harry Goode Award was created by AFIPS in 1964 and in 1990 when
* The issue of a treasurer was discussed in light of the possibility to
* The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 on December 6.
* the policy in 1994 did not work. (Indicate it was submitted to
* the production of all transactions was shifted from NJ (IEEE) to CA
* The selection was based on the results of the blind review process, with
* There was discussion that this should be deferred. The deferral
* This is not Jurassic Park. Yesterday the first on was held. Fully
* to the authors, be retained was passed with no opposition.
* was a discussion of the net surplus from the transactions and the need
* was for 260. Posters were increased to 3 pages in the proceedings. A
* was given to A. Rosenfeld at ICPR-88 in Rome. T. Pavlidis retired from
* was requested. The allocation is 1/3 of the conference surplus plus some more
* was tabled by a vote of Yes (to table) 16, No 11, Abstain 14. Thus, no change
* were sent out for determining the Roberts award. There was also some
60 for was.

washington * shapiro@cs.washington.edu.

way * Discussion: no way to have third track in the hotel in the Seattle
* enforcement of the existing rules. A: No formal way to get on the
* number of pages. Find a way to recycle the money to the TC by

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

weakens * papers weakens the conference.

weather * in weather. Airfares are about $800-900 from London, and $1000 from

web * See the Web page.

wednesday * Presented his petition, circulated on Wednesday and Thursday.

week * (Possible dates, in October 1995; or Week before Thanksgiving.)
* at CMU (one of the 10 highest at CMU 500 per week -- send mail to
* Board meeting (next week) will propose that PAMI go to 12 issues and
* week before. Finiancial Responsibility with ICPR, this is an
* Week of June 16 Hotel Nikko. (Not signed yet, but that is the

weighting * A question regarding the weighting down of some reviewers since they

weinshall * b. Tel Aviv proposal: Yeshurun, Shashua, Weinshall, Edelman;

well * after 5 meetings in cities (well Champaign-Urbana). Several things
* meeting in Hawaii was well received.

were * 210 papers were submitted, expect about 40%-60%. This meeting
* 400 people on the conference lists that were not on the TC list were contacted
* Agenda item #0: The minutes were approved after some discussion of whether
* Agenda item #10: The revised by-laws, distributed at ICCV-II, were
* Agenda item #1: R. Bajcsy gave a report on ICCV-II: There were 306 papers
* Agenda item #0: The minutes of the last meeting were approved
* Agenda Item #1: CVPR92, Narendra Ahuja. There were 357 submissions,
* Agenda item #1: The minutes of the last meeting were approved.
* Agenda item #3: CAD-Based Vision June 2-3: (Linda Shapiro) 69 were
* Attendees were about evenly divided among members, students, and
* both were below 2, it was rejected. The remaining 350 papers were
* Changes made in the executive committee (Section 3.2) were removal after
* Comments were duly noted by the organizers.
* Concerns regarding the cost were addressed. The hotel is $120 in 1997
* Discussion: not wanting quotas, but the reviews were done by
* equivalent papers were rejected on the grounds of prior conference
* Eric noted that half of the 600 registered were in the dorm at MIT.
* expenses were about $13.4K sinced it was budgeted at 55 people.
* Held in Tskuba Japan this fall, over 260 papers, 20 were long 124
* Issues raised were Technical Council (a bit more freedom than
* Item 1. The previous minutes were approved with an addition to
* night). 98 papers and 45 posters. 22 committee members were at the LA
* PR papers) or that no good ones were there. Question is whether we
* provided at cost (rather than sales prices) if they were available.
* Recognition papers, but the ones submitted were bad.
* registered, 18 or 30 submissions were accepted.
* retain more conference income, but decisions were postponed until the
* service as the past chair. The appointed officers were announced:
* Several related items were then discussed:
* The by-laws were passed by Yes: 20, No: 0, and Abstain: 7.
* The conference fees (which were considered
* the last TC newsletter. Several minor changes were made at the meeting.
* There were 491 papers submitted, 2 reviewers for each paper with at
* was for 260. Posters were increased to 3 pages in the proceedings. A
* were poorly considered. (T. Binford) Quality is shown by innovation and
* were sent out for determining the Roberts award. There was also some
* were submitted and 3 reviewers will be used. About 35 are expected.
39 for were.

west * Mention: Key West is cheaper (Miami)?
* some discussion of a West Coast location, with no other suggestions at

westin * chairs approved last year. The Seattle Westin Hotel has been

what * (ECCV, ICPR), a difficulty in determining what is different. Some
* a lack of awareness of what the TC membership is.
* bigger and have some of what we want. Current relationship is
* Can we take the journal? Threaten to pull out and see what happens.
* discussion on what it means to broaden the meeting, but are the
* Discussion: General membership does not know what a TC is. There is
* Linda: Not sure what to spend the money on, hard to get the people
* Q: Motion to attempt to fix something, what is being fixed?
* the call for papers is already out, what it real means, how much
* the US 4 members on the board. Then the discussion started of what
* them, how much to charge, what would they provide, what services would
* what, and how relevant the issue is in the first place.
13 for what.

whatever * mail the newsletter directly to the US membership list (whatever that
* mailing the IAPR newsletter to the membership list (whatever that is).
* the journal), such as a society or whatever.

wheather * allowed by the Computer Society. The question is wheather to charge

when * A: When crucial decisions need to be made must be made by the
* images used in papers to a data base), when to add since the student
* it when to the 10K list, but that is expensive.
* meeting of the PAMI TC membership when compared to the PAMI journal
* newsletter. When electronic was offered, only 100 responded. The
* The Harry Goode Award was created by AFIPS in 1964 and in 1990 when
6 for when.

where * (where is PR?). There is not much on Pattern Recognition in the
* know where the images are. Phil Kahn (ADS and the net news vision
* Radius where context is used. Time Tied to ICCV.
* Vision has increased to the point where Computer Vision dominates

whether * Agenda item #0: The minutes were approved after some discussion of whether
* After more discussion about whether it is right or wrong to submit to
* conferences, whether the TC should dictate conference format, and how to
* control the program committee should have, whether it would lead to
* Discussion as to whether this is the list for the IAPR "society"
* Open question is whether there is running commentary (currently no).
* PR papers) or that no good ones were there. Question is whether we
* question of whether one conference can handle all of them is another
* still too narrow. Open discussion on whether it is broad enough.
* want Pattern Recognition papers or not. Image Processing has a new conference. Issue is whether
* whether one month or 6 months apart, travel to major conferences
11 for whether.

which * (CS-Press), which has helped publication. There is a CS committee
* (which is cheaper to stay and get to). Puerto Rico? (St Thomas is
* 160 papers. One issue to think about is the single track, which would
* allow for about 70-80 papers, or the posters which results in about
* are added. We currently claim >1000 members for the IAPR which gives
* Current motion is an EC, which is a good thing that is willing to
* The conference fees (which were considered
* the same time, which brought up the usual long discussed issues of
8 for which.

while * a year with the IAPR being the bulk of the newsletter. For a while

who * (who is willing). Moved and seconded, unanimous.
* conference. An issue is who is a member? and a structure of a
* Discussion centered on determining differences, who is responsible for
* Discussion of who is a member of the TC (according to IEEE) the IEEE
* Discussion on who they would report to?
* no one who is strong). Q: regarding who was on the ProgCom -- not
* open up the process. But we are not keeping track of who comes and
* publication. So an issue of who are the members so that business
* Q: Who takes the finiancial risk? Hope proeedings from IEEE, up
* Steve: If there are enough people who feel that we should look at
* votes among the membership by mail and not just who comes to the
* Who are members for IAPR issues. We do not have a good structure of
* who does not. Problem of membership, who is a member, who is not?
* who is a member and who can vote. IEEE does not regard this as a
18 for who.

whole * too high) are based on a formula. For the computer area as a whole,

why *