| name | sigmetrics-workflow |
| description | Use when planning an ACM SIGMETRICS project timeline across the three rolling deadlines (summer/fall/winter), from venue fit through abstract registration, submission, shepherding, the one-shot revision round, POMACS publication, and presentation, with backward-planning offsets for a performance-evaluation paper and honest handling of the rolling-deadline cadence and the 12-month resubmission bar. |
SIGMETRICS Workflow
Use this as the project-management skill for a SIGMETRICS submission. SIGMETRICS runs three
rolling deadlines a year (summer / fall / winter) into the POMACS journal, so the calendar is
a choice among deadlines, not a single annual scramble. Replace every date with the current
official timetable and work backwards from the abstract-registration cutoff, which precedes each
paper deadline by about a week.
SIGMETRICS has rotating per-edition General and Program Chairs (appointed by the SIGMETRICS
executive committee) rather than a standing conference editor-in-chief; POMACS is open access
with no APC, and at least one author presents each accepted paper. Re-check the current
organizing-committee page rather than carrying a name forward.
The rolling-deadline advantage
Unlike a once-a-year venue, SIGMETRICS lets you aim at the next deadline that fits your
evidence. Two consequences:
- Missing a deadline costs ~4 months, not a year — the next rolling deadline is a quarter away.
Do not rush a proof or a measurement campaign to hit summer if fall gives you a clean result.
- Publication timing matters: summer/fall acceptances appear in POMACS before the
conference; a winter acceptance publishes in the following issue. Choose the deadline whose
POMACS timing and presentation slot fit your goals.
Milestones
- Venue fit: confirm SIGMETRICS over IMC/SIGCOMM/NSDI/a theory venue, and the correct track
(
sigmetrics-topic-selection).
- Evidence lock: freeze the model and assumptions, complete the proofs, and finish the
simulation/measurement that validates them.
- Abstract registration: submit real title, abstract, authors, conflicts, and track by the
earlier registration deadline.
- Submission: upload the anonymized acmsmall PDF and the artifact reference by the paper
deadline (23:59 AoE).
- Reviews: triage each comment by criterion (rigor, proof correctness, assumption validity,
evidence, novelty, reproducibility).
- One-Shot Revision (if issued): close the entire required-changes list and resubmit to one of
the two subsequent deadlines — a single shot, re-read by the original reviewers.
- Accept + shepherding: incorporate the shepherd's required changes into the final POMACS
version.
- Publication + presentation: POMACS camera-ready, artifact/badges if the cycle offers them,
register, and present.
Backward plan from a paper deadline
| Weeks out (heuristic) | Performance-evaluation milestone |
|---|
| 10+ | Model and assumptions fixed; main theorems stated; measurement/trace secured |
| 8 | Proofs complete and internally checked; simulator built with logged seeds |
| 6 | Analysis-vs-simulation agreement established; baselines chosen and tuned |
| 4 | Full draft in acmsmall; artifact (model, simulator, trace scripts) assembled and anonymized |
| 3 | Internal mock review by a performance-evaluation reader (check a proof case and an assumption) |
| 2 | Assumption-validity section hardened; related-work delta sharpened; 20-page budget met |
| 1 | Anonymity sweep on PDF and artifact; abstract registered |
| 0 | Paper + artifact reference on the correct per-deadline HotCRP site |
These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current call and the
per-deadline HotCRP deadlines page, never to a previous cycle.
The 12-month bar and cycle-hopping
- A reject cannot be resubmitted to any SIGMETRICS deadline for 12 months from the initial
submission — a structural reject costs a full year at SIGMETRICS, so route a fundamentally
reframed paper elsewhere meanwhile rather than idling.
- A One-Shot Revision is not a reject: it resubmits to a subsequent deadline within the rolling
process. Budget the revision window to close the whole list in one shot.
Failure modes by stage
- A proof still has an open case at week 4 forces a rushed appendix nobody has checked — the
classic rigor reject in the making.
- An unvalidated assumption (claiming M/G/1 without fitting the workload) invites the "does the
model match reality?" objection that a One-Shot Revision then has to repair.
- Leaving the simulator/trace scripts to the final week is how a cluster path or a
provenance string leaks identity under double-anonymity.
- Rushing a One-Shot Revision into the nearer deadline and leaving a listed item half-done turns
a winnable single-shot into a reject.
Coordination notes
- Assign one owner for the proofs/appendix and another for the simulator/measurement and the
anonymity sweep; shared ownership is how both slip.
- Archive the exact submitted PDF, artifact, and (later) the required-changes list and response —
the single-shot revision must close that list precisely.
Output format
[Current stage] idea / model+proof / evidence / registration / submitted / one-shot revision / accepted
[Chosen deadline] summer / fall / winter <cycle>, and its abstract + paper dates (source)
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness>
[Risk register] <proof completeness / assumption validity / anonymity / reproducibility / page budget>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>
