> > The words are what are getting us in trouble here (e.g., "workshop
> > paper" even though Vern's initial note explicitly includes short
> > papers From IM**C**, "tech report" which means
> 
> My original note was primarily in terms of "short papers", and that's
> still where I think the line should be drawn.  The mention of tech
> reports was only a (misguided) try at framing how the existence of the
> previously published short papers should be treated.

You may have teed this up as "short papers", but much in the thread has
been about "workshop papers", it seems to me.  My note is that we need
to be quite careful about casing this correctly.

So then, what is a short paper?  Is a 10 page ICNP paper "short" in the
context of submitting a 14 page version to SIGCOMM?  John noted that for
some IEEE journal the rule-of-thumb was 20-30% new stuff in a journal
paper over a conference paper.  That could be satisfied in the
ICNP->SIGCOMM case.  Or, how does one treat an internet-draft?  If the
"spark" (to use Jen's word) is in a 50 page I-D, does that mean it can
be considered a contribution in a paper?  Or, has that been "published"?
I have seen reviewers go both ways.  (Personally, to me an I-D is less
published than a tech report because an I-D is supposed to expire.)

I'm rolling this all around my head again and will probably offer an
opinion.  But, my strongest opinion is that whatever we do we need to be
clear and explicit---which is tough because all the words are
overloaded.

allman