| name | eurosys-workflow |
| description | Use when planning a EuroSys campaign end to end — choosing between the spring and fall gates of an edition, backward-scheduling system building and evaluation from the abstract deadline, handling the notification-to-revision-to-resubmission pipeline, and landing camera-ready, artifacts, and April travel for the conference. |
EuroSys Workflow
Use this as the project plan around a EuroSys submission. The venue's calendar
is its most distinctive constraint: one April conference fed by two
submission gates roughly four months apart. Dates below are the EuroSys 2027
cycle as rendered on 2026-07-08 (2027.eurosys.org/cfp.html); re-pull the live
CFP before committing the team to any of them.
The 2027 board
| Milestone | Date | Status on 2026-07-08 |
|---|
| Spring abstracts / papers | May 7 / May 14, 2026 | Closed |
| Spring notification | August 21, 2026 | ~6 weeks away |
| Fall abstracts / papers | September 17 / 24, 2026 | ~10 / 11 weeks away |
| Fall notification | January 29, 2027 | — |
| Camera-ready (both cohorts) | ~March 5, 2027 (third-party, 待核实) | — |
| Conference, Rabat, Morocco | April 19–23/24, 2027 (end date 待核实) | — |
So a team starting today has one live target: the fall gate. A team with a
spring submission under review is in the quiet zone — the right use of that
zone is artifact preparation and boundary experiments, both of which pay off
regardless of the August outcome.
Backward plan to the fall paper gate (Sep 24, 2026)
T-10w now System feature-frozen for the paper's claims; eval matrix written
T-8w late Jul Decomposition + cost experiments running nightly; plots automated
T-6w mid Aug Full draft exists in acmart[sigplan] review mode; internal read #1
T-4w late Aug Boundary/worst-case runs done; related-work sweep incl. dblp pass
T-3w early Sep External mock review by a systems colleague outside the project
T-2w Sep 10 Claims-to-evidence audit; every number has provenance
T-1w Sep 17 ABSTRACT GATE — title/abstract/authors/topics/conflicts final
T-0 Sep 24 Paper gate — identity sweep on the final PDF, upload with margin
The two-gate structure is a gift: the abstract week is for polishing, and the
title and abstract registered at T-1w determine which reviewers bid — write
them for bidding, not as placeholders.
Branching after notification
- Accept → camera-ready lane (ACM forms, final build) plus the sysartifacts
artifact lane in parallel; they contend for the same people, so name owners.
- One-shot revision → the condition list becomes the plan of record; the
resubmission target is the next round's gate. Feasibility call within one
week (see
eurosys-author-response).
- Reject → the same round next edition is the earliest legal EuroSys
return. Decide between a genuine year of strengthening or retargeting a
sibling venue whose next deadline fits the work's maturity
(
eurosys-topic-selection has the routing table).
Standing risks and their owners
| Risk | Early symptom | Owner |
|---|
| Eval starts too late | No automated plots by T-8w | Experiments lead |
| Baseline dispute | Tuning provenance undocumented | Whoever runs baselines |
| Anonymity leak | Repo/PDF never swept | Submission owner |
| Revision-condition overrun | No feasibility call in week one | Project lead |
| Travel/visa for Rabat | Unchecked entry requirements post-accept | Presenting author |
Using the quiet zones
The two-gate calendar creates long author-side silences (submission to
notification is ~14 weeks). Teams that treat them as vacations pay later:
- Artifact runway: build the claims map and environment contract now;
AE and camera-ready will collide with each other after notification.
- Boundary experiments: the worst-case runs cut on deadline week are
exactly what a revision condition list will demand — run them anyway.
- Preprint and talk policy: decide, against the round's anonymity
wording (待核实), what can be presented publicly while under review.
- Next-gate insurance: keep the evaluation harness runnable; if the
outcome is a revision, the conditions arrive with a four-month fuse.
Coordination notes for multi-author teams
- One person owns the HotCRP record (fields, conflicts, uploads); shared
ownership of forms produces last-minute permission surprises.
- The evaluation lead and the writing lead exchange the claims-to-evidence
map weekly from T-6w; prose drifting ahead of data is how overclaiming
enters a draft innocently.
- Book the mock reviewer at T-4w for a T-3w read; systems colleagues who
can simulate a EuroSys review are scarce in September.
Two-gate portfolio thinking
Groups with multiple projects should stagger them across the two gates rather
than crowding the fall: a spring submission gets its decision in August with
time to revise into the fall, while a fall submission's revision path crosses
into the next edition. Maturity at gate time — not preference for a season —
should pick the gate.
Output format
[Live target] <gate and days remaining>
[Stage now] building / evaluating / drafting / submitted / revising / accepted
[Backward-plan health] <milestones behind or on track>
[Post-notification branch] <accept / revision / reject plan sketch>
[Owners] <risk -> named person>
