Skip to main content

Your suggestions for SenSys 2009

This year, Jie Liu and I are program co-chairs for ACM SenSys 2009, the 7th year of this highly successful conference on sensor networks. David Culler is the general chair and is doing a great job making the conference actually happen (by comparison, the job that Jie and I have is pretty easy).

SenSys was started, in part, to provide a venue for true systems papers on sensor nets, as opposed to the large body of theoretical and simulation-based work in the area. Prior to SenSys, there was no single good venue to publish these papers: they did not quite belong in traditional networking or mobile communications conferences; nor did they represent a substantial fraction of the programs at the mainstays of the systems community (such as SOSP and OSDI). I think SenSys has done a great job at carving itself out as the premier conference for sensor networks systems research, and it continues to be an extremely vibrant and competitive venue.

Now that SenSys has been around for a while, Jie and I thought it would be worthwhile to reflect on the state of the WSN research community and consider what the conference's role should be going forward. So, we'd like to hear your thoughts on what direction SenSys should take this year. Please feel free to comment on this article, or just email me with any ideas you have.

As you can tell from the call for papers and the excellent program committee we have put together, we are trying something different with SenSys this year. First, we are bringing in a number of PC members who are outside of the "traditional" WSN community, in the hopes of keeping us on our toes, and maintaining a sanity check on the quality of the papers compared to other areas, such as wireless and mobile networking. Second, we are hoping to broaden the scope of the conference to encompass "non-traditional" sensor network systems, such as the use of mobile phones or underwater sensor nets. At the same time, we have to be careful not to water down the core of the conference (no pun intended). Finally, I am hoping to re-calibrate the conference in terms of its expectations of what constitutes a good paper. In my opinion, not enough papers submitted to SenSys (and other WSN venues) constitute really strong systems papers, in terms of technical depth, presentation, and quality of the evaluation. So while we want to become more inclusive it is also important to maintain high standards.

So, we'd like to get your thoughts on the conference, the reviewing process, and your hopes for what direction we might take. As a reminder, the abstract submission deadline is April 1, with full papers due April 8 - see the full call for papers here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I'm leaving Harvard

The word is out that I have decided to resign my tenured faculty job at Harvard to remain at Google. Obviously this will be a big change in my career, and one that I have spent a tremendous amount of time mulling over the last few months.

Rather than let rumors spread about the reasons for my move, I think I should be pretty direct in explaining my thinking here.

I should say first of all that I'm not leaving because of any problems with Harvard. On the contrary, I love Harvard, and will miss it a lot. The computer science faculty are absolutely top-notch, and the students are the best a professor could ever hope to work with. It is a fantastic environment, very supportive, and full of great people. They were crazy enough to give me tenure, and I feel no small pang of guilt for leaving now. I joined Harvard because it offered the opportunity to make a big impact on a great department at an important school, and I have no regrets about my decision to go there eight years ago. But m…

Rewriting a large production system in Go

My team at Google is wrapping up an effort to rewrite a large production system (almost) entirely in Go. I say "almost" because one component of the system -- a library for transcoding between image formats -- works perfectly well in C++, so we decided to leave it as-is. But the rest of the system is 100% Go, not just wrappers to existing modules in C++ or another language. It's been a fun experience and I thought I'd share some lessons learned.

Why rewrite?

The first question we must answer is why we considered a rewrite in the first place. When we started this project, we adopted an existing C++ based system, which had been developed over the course of a couple of years by two of our sister teams at Google. It's a good system and does its job remarkably well. However, it has been used in several different projects with vastly different goals, leading to a nontrivial accretion of cruft. Over time, it became apparent that for us to continue to innovate rapidly wo…

Running a software team at Google

I'm often asked what my job is like at Google since I left academia. I guess going from tenured professor to software engineer sounds like a big step down. Job titles aside, I'm much happier and more productive in my new role than I was in the 8 years at Harvard, though there are actually a lot of similarities between being a professor and running a software team.

I lead a team at Google's Seattle office which is responsible for a range of projects in the mobile web performance area (for more background on my team's work see my earlier blog post on the topic). One of our projects is the recently-announced data compression proxy support in Chrome Mobile. We also work on the PageSpeed suite of technologies, specifically focusing on mobile web optimization, as well as a bunch of other cool stuff that I can't talk about just yet.

My official job title is just "software engineer," which is the most common (and coveted) role at Google. (I say "coveted&quo…