| name | oopsla-workflow |
| description | Use when planning an OOPSLA campaign on the two-round clock — choosing October vs March entry, budgeting for Minor or Major Revision paths, mapping acceptance to the OOPSLA1 or OOPSLA2 PACMPL issue, scheduling artifact evaluation, and landing the SPLASH talk, with dates re-anchored to the live cycle. |
OOPSLA Workflow
OOPSLA gives a paper two doors per year into the same PACMPL volume — for
2026, October 10, 2025 (Round 1 → Issue OOPSLA1, published from April 1,
2026) and March 17, 2026 (Round 2 → Issue OOPSLA2, from October 1, 2026),
with all outcomes presented at SPLASH (Oakland, October 4–9, 2026; OOPSLA
talks October 5–7). Planning an OOPSLA campaign is therefore a routing
problem over rounds and revision outcomes, not a countdown to a single
deadline. As of 2026-07-08 the next open door is the 2027 volume's Round 1,
CFP not yet posted (待核实) — re-anchor every date below to live pages.
Door choice: October vs March
| Factor | Favors the October round | Favors the March round |
|---|
| Revision insurance | Major Revision lands in March, same volume | Major Revision waits ~7 months for next volume's R1 |
| Publication timing | April issue; citable before the conference | October issue; publishes near conference time |
| Evidence maturity | Requires the evaluation done by early fall | Buys a winter of experiments |
| Team calendar | Summer build, fall write | Fall build, winter write |
| Talk lead time | Long runway to SPLASH | Acceptance close to travel booking |
Default heuristic: enter the earliest round where the evidence (not the
prose) is complete — the revision insurance of the early round compounds,
because the most likely non-accept outcome for solid work is a revision, and
same-volume revision is the cheapest one available anywhere in the SIGPLAN
family.
Campaign state machine
PLAN ──> ROUND N SUBMITTED ──> RESPONSE WINDOW ──> outcome?
Accept ─────────────► CAMERA-READY ► ARTIFACT ► ISSUE ► SPLASH TALK
Minor Revision ─────► execute list, same round ► (as Accept)
Major Revision ─────► revise against expectations ► ROUND N+1 (same
reviewers where possible)
Reject ─────────────► diagnose ► re-route (oopsla-topic-selection)
or rebuild ► a later round
Each transition has an owner and a date pulled from the live track page.
Backward plan from a target round (T = deadline)
- T-12 to T-8 weeks — freeze claim list; run
oopsla-experiments
routing; start the demand matrix and reproducibility ledger.
- T-8 to T-4 — full draft in the 23-page frame; related-work family
sweep (
oopsla-related-work); internal red-team read using the four
SIGPLAN pillars.
- T-4 to T-1 — style pass (
oopsla-writing-style); appendix layering
(oopsla-supplementary); Data-Availability Statement drafted from the
ledger.
- Final 72 hours — the filing-day sequence in
oopsla-submission.
- Post-submission — pre-write response scaffolding: the concerns you
already know about, with PDF pointers ready for the four-day window.
Revision-path budgeting
Reserve capacity after submission: the two most probable outcomes for
competent work — Minor and Major Revision — both demand engineering time on
a fixed clock. A team that disbands to other projects the week after the
deadline systematically converts Minor Revisions into missed opportunities.
Rule of thumb: hold 20% of the build team's time in reserve until the
outcome letter, then re-plan against the actual expectation list.
Post-acceptance rail
Camera-ready reconciliation (oopsla-camera-ready) → artifact kick-the-tires
and badges (oopsla-artifact-evaluation) → Zenodo DOI into the final
statement → issue publication → SPLASH registration, talk, and optional
poster. The talk lands months after OOPSLA1 publication — plan it as a
presentation of known work, and budget travel to the SPLASH city early.
Output format
[Cycle anchor] current volume + next open round (live URL + date checked)
[Door choice] round + rationale from the table
[State] position in the state machine
[Reserve] revision capacity held + expiry
[Next transition] owner, date, blocking items
