<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in <b>/home/zhenxiangba/zhenxiangba.com/public_html/phproxy-improved-master/index.php</b> on line <b>456</b><br />
From: Kung-Kiu Lau <kung-kiu@cs.man.ac.uk>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Subject: [lopstr] LOPSTR's future
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 17:04:49 +0100

Dear all,

Two issues that need to be resolved:
i.  LOPSTR's name
ii. steering committee 

LOPSTR's name
-------------

At the PC meeting in Cyprus last year, there was a proposal to change
the name to Symposium. There was also a propsal to change "Synthesis
and Transformation" to "Development" 
 
So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:

1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation 
4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

Steering committee
------------------

Maurice Bruynooghe writes:
 > > 
 > > Hold your horses, everyone! These matters should be discussed with 
 > > (and decided by) with the LOPSTR community (lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk).
 > > 
 > > At present even the existence of the steering committee has not been
 > > properly discussed, much less sanctioned.
 > 
 > steering committe should be installed soon
 > as there is more to discuss
 > 
 > In my opinion, you as LOPSTR initiator and guard, and some program chairs
 > (last 5 ones? so it is not eternally and keeps not growing) belong to it.
 > 
 > I would say steering committee decides, (and may consult community,
 > may decide to follow advise from community, ...)
 > 
 > Also, there is need to plan longer ahead (because of collocation decisions
 > to be made) . E.g. SAS has already settled its 2004 location. LOPSTR
 > will have to choose between SAS and the initiative below.
 > 
 > Steering committee can also advise PC-chair with composition of PC.
 > 
 > 
 > Maurice
 > ...

Also at the PC meeting in Cyprus, an informal group was appointed to
act as the interim SC to deal with pressing issues. Membership was 
very much based on Maurice's suggestions, so the group is:

Annalisa Bossi
Kung-Kiu Lau
Alberto Pettorossi
Michael Leuschel 
Maurice Bruynooghe

This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
please discuss and vote on the following:

A. No to steering committee
B. Yes to steering committee
   B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
   B2. Yes to above SC. 

Please act asap, but I realise many are on holiday right now.

Kung-Kiu

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Maurice Bruynooghe <Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Subject: [lopstr] Re: Final verdict & symposium vs workshop
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:32:12 +0200 (MEST)

> 
> Hold your horses, everyone! These matters should be discussed with 
> (and decided by) with the LOPSTR community (lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk).
> 
> At present even the existence of the steering committee has not been
> properly discussed, much less sanctioned.

steering committe should be installed soon
as there is more to discuss

In my opinion, you as LOPSTR initiator and guard, and some program chairs
(last 5 ones? so it is not eternally and keeps not growing) belong to it.

I would say steering committee decides, (and may consult community,
may decide to follow advise from community, ...)

Also, there is need to plan longer ahead (because of collocation decisions
to be made) . E.g. SAS has already settled its 2004 location. LOPSTR
will have to choose between SAS and the initiative below.

Steering committee can also advise PC-chair with composition of PC.

Maurice

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Tarau <tarau@cs.unt.edu>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:14:25 -0500

I would go for:

4. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

which folds to

International Symposium on Logic-based Programming

which folds to

International Symposium on Logic Programming

well - we seem to be in know territory again :-)

Paul Tarau

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mireille Ducasse <Mireille.Ducasse@irisa.fr>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future 
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:21:35 +0200

* I strongly vote for "Development" instead of "Synthesis and Transformation".

I have no strong preference between "workshop" and "symposium". I
still think that symposium is a bit pretentious for what lopstr
currently is (athough, of course, it would be nice if it was "larger").

So I vote for

>> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development

but I have no strong arguments against 
>> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

* I think that a steering Commitee is a good idea.

>> Annalisa Bossi
>> Kung-Kiu Lau
>> Alberto Pettorossi
>> Michael Leuschel 
>> Maurice Bruynooghe

Seems a good temporary steering committee, although I would rather
vote for a rule. 

" the last 5 PC chairs" seems a good rule.

Mireille

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Laurent Fribourg <fribourg@lsv.ens-cachan.fr>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:26:56 +0200

 I do not really care, but I think that the new name
 (whatever it is) should concern Lopstr'03 and the following
 events, not Lopstr'02. 

> Steering committee
> ------------------
> 
> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
> 
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.
> 

 I vote B2.

--laurent

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Francisco Bueno Carrillo <bueno@clip.dia.fi.upm.es>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:41:34 +0200

>> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
>> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
>> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation 
>> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote 2, but no oposition to 4, either.

>> A. No to steering committee
>> B. Yes to steering committee
>>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>>    B2. Yes to above SC. 

I vote B2.

Francisco Bueno

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Leuschel <mal@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: <lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future 
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 19:26:20 +0100

> I
> still think that symposium is a bit pretentious for what lopstr
> currently is (athough, of course, it would be nice if it was "larger").

Latest figures might help you in your decision: for Lopstr'02 we had 39
submissions, 23 selected for presentation at Lopstr'02 (among which 9 as
full length papers which need no further refereeing).

(For comparison's sake: When PADL'01 switched from workshop to symposium
they had 40 submissions and 23 selected for the proceedings.)

I think we need symposium tag if we want to survive & attract high quality
submissions.
Another note (relate to Paul Tarau's reply ;-)): Lopstr is not (or rather no
longer) limited to logic programming, which I think is relevant.

Michael

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Norbert E. Fuchs" <fuchs@ifi.unizh.ch>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:30:47 +0200

>So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
>
>1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
>2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
>3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
>4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote for 2

   "International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development"

that preserves the aspect of LOPSTR that I appreciate most - the 
informal and highly productive workshop atmosphere - and takes into 
account the shift of focus during the last years.

>Steering committee
>------------------
>
>Also at the PC meeting in Cyprus, an informal group was appointed to
>act as the interim SC to deal with pressing issues. Membership was
>very much based on Maurice's suggestions, so the group is:
>
>Annalisa Bossi
>Kung-Kiu Lau
>Alberto Pettorossi
>Michael Leuschel
>Maurice Bruynooghe
>
>This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
>please discuss and vote on the following:
>
>A. No to steering committee
>B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

I vote for B1

   B. Yes to steering committee
      B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)

The informally appointed group consists of five highly qualified 
persons that are extremely respected in the LOPSTR community, but I 
like Maurice Bruynooghe's proposal

  > In my opinion, you as LOPSTR initiator and guard, and some program chairs
  > (last 5 ones? so it is not eternally and keeps not growing) belong to it.

much better since it results in an optimal balance between continuity 
and change, and makes the experience of the most recent PC chairs 
available. Furthermore, it takes into account KK's decisive role as 
LOPSTR's initiator and guardian.

Regards.

Norbert E. Fuchs

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Olivier Ridoux <Olivier.Ridoux@irisa.fr>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:14:48 +0200


Kung-Kiu Lau wrote:
...
> LOPSTR's name
> -------------
> 
> At the PC meeting in Cyprus last year, there was a proposal to change
> the name to Symposium. There was also a propsal to change "Synthesis
> and Transformation" to "Development"
> 
> So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
> 
> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I am amazed that the discussion focuses on the Workshop->Symposium
switch and not at all on the STR->DEV switch.  

I did not follow the discussion but I imagine "development" was felt as
more general than "synthesis and transformation".  However, my feeling
is that for LOPSTR "synthesis" means "logic --> program", and
"transformation" means "program -->_{logic} program".  What is missing? 
"program --> logic" which is static analysis.  Do you really think that
static analysis was explicitly excluded?  That static analysis is rare
at LOPSTR simply means there are better places for it.  

Finally, Paul Tarau's joke shows well what is threatening a
"International Whatever on Logic-Based Program Development".  
What is nice in LOPSTR is that it is not a "Language at War Conference".

To conclude, since I am rather conservative on names when I see no needs
for change, I prefer to stick to STR, and I vote for 3: International
Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation.

> Steering committee
> ------------------
> 
> Maurice Bruynooghe writes:
...
>  > In my opinion, you as LOPSTR initiator and guard, and some program chairs
>  > (last 5 ones? so it is not eternally and keeps not growing) belong to it.

> Annalisa Bossi
> Kung-Kiu Lau
> Alberto Pettorossi
> Michael Leuschel
> Maurice Bruynooghe
...
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

I vote for B2, and Maurice's rule (or any similar rule that warrants
renewal and no explosion).

Olivier

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Maurice Bruynooghe <Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:15:28 +0200 (MEST)

> So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
> 
> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation 
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote for symposium
Synthesis and Transformation vs Development
It is good to broaden the scope
But somehow, we should keep the current acronym?
so I cannot decide between 3 and 4

> 
> Steering committee
> 
> Annalisa Bossi
> Kung-Kiu Lau
> Alberto Pettorossi
> Michael Leuschel 
> Maurice Bruynooghe
> 
> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
> 
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC. 
> 
B1
KK + most recent PC-chairs, totalling 5 (is currently the B2, but not for ever)

Maurice

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Antonio Brogi <brogi@di.unipi.it>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk, Kung-Kiu Lau <kung-kiu@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:28:01 +0200 (CEST)

Dear All,

As for LOPSTR's name, my preference is:

> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development

As for the steering committee, my vote is: 

> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B2. Yes to above SC. 

and I like Maurice's proposal to have a rule like:

> > In my opinion, you as LOPSTR initiator and guard, and some program
> > chairs (last 5 ones? so it is not eternally and keeps not growing) 
> > belong to it.

Best regards

-- Antonio

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Fred Mesnard <Frederic.Mesnard@univ-reunion.fr>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:46:28 +0200

> LOPSTR's name
> -------------
> 
> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote 4.

> Steering committee
> ------------------
> 
> Annalisa Bossi
> Kung-Kiu Lau
> Alberto Pettorossi
> Michael Leuschel
> Maurice Bruynooghe
> 
> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
> 
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.
>

B1. 
We could start with the above SC and go on with
"the last 5 PC chairs". Or a mix. But  I think
that the composition of SC should be able to evolve.

Fred

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pierre Flener <Pierre.Flener@csd.uu.se>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:10:40 +0200 (CEST)

dear all,

I vote, by decreasing preference, for the following new names:

> 4. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Development
> 2. International  Workshop on Logic-based Program Development

#4 comes first, _provided_ the operation mode of LOPSTR is not changed
(i.e., not-fully-baked papers can also be submitted and presented, but
have to evolve for the post-proceedings).

> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)

same comments as Maurice, Mireille, and Norbert: a rule is better.

cheers,
        Pierre

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Gallagher <john.gallagher@bristol.ac.uk>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:18:36 +0100

> 1. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

The change from 'Synthesis and Transformation' to 'Development' doesn't seem very
significant in itself (I doubt it would attract more submissions)
and would lead to an anomaly in which the acronym wouldn't match the
full name.  This would be ridiculous in my opinion.  The name LOPSTR would
have to be changed too.

The call for papers gives a detailed list of topics.

In a previous discussion I came down in favour of Symposium.

So I vote for 3.

> 
> Steering committee
> ------------------

> Also at the PC meeting in Cyprus, an informal group was appointed to
> act as the interim SC to deal with pressing issues. Membership was
> very much based on Maurice's suggestions, so the group is:
> 
> Annalisa Bossi
> Kung-Kiu Lau
> Alberto Pettorossi
> Michael Leuschel
> Maurice Bruynooghe
> 
> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
> 
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.
> 

I vote B2.  

The formula for the future can be anything so long as turnover is ensured.
5 years is perhaps rather a long period so I prefer to be more flexible
than taking the previous 5 years' chairs.  Perhaps a maximum term of 5 years?

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Maurizio Proietti <proietti@iasi.rm.cnr.it>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:08:31 +0000

> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote for 3
I think it is important for publicity reasons that we keep the old
acronym LOPSTR, unless we decide to make very
drastic changes (e.g. fusion with other conferences).
If at all necessary, we may stress the broadening of scope
in the cfp.
Regarding the workshop/symposium dilemma,
I think we can try the symposium format for LOPSTR'03
(and comply with the usual one round referee process).
We can see what happens and possibly return to 
the workshop format for subsequent meetings.

> Annalisa Bossi
> Kung-Kiu Lau
> Alberto Pettorossi
> Michael Leuschel
> Maurice Bruynooghe
> 
> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
> 
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

For the steering committee I vote for
B2 + Maurice's rule

Maurizio

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nicoletta Cocco <cocco@dsi.unive.it>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: <lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk>
cc: <Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:13:43 +0200 (MET DST)

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Kung-Kiu Lau wrote:
> So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
>
> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote for 2, LOPD is not so bad.

>
> Annalisa Bossi
> Kung-Kiu Lau
> Alberto Pettorossi
> Michael Leuschel
> Maurice Bruynooghe
>
> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
>
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.
>

My vote is for B1 for now, but I agree with Maurice's suggestion
for the future

> you as LOPSTR initiator and guard, and some program chairs
> (last 5 ones? so it is not eternally and keeps not growing)

Cheers

	Nicoletta

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nicoletta Cocco <cocco@dsi.unive.it>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: <lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk>
cc: <Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:22:34 +0200 (MET DST)

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Nicoletta Cocco wrote:
> My vote is for B1 for now, but I agree with Maurice's suggestion
> for the future

sorry, I meant B2, obviously.

	Nicoletta

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Torben AEgidius Mogensen <torbenm@diku.dk>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
cc: Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:22:13 +0200 (MEST)

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Kung-Kiu Lau wrote:

> So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
>
> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote for 3.

> Steering committee
> ------------------

> Also at the PC meeting in Cyprus, an informal group was appointed to
> act as the interim SC to deal with pressing issues. Membership was
> very much based on Maurice's suggestions, so the group is:
>
> Annalisa Bossi
> Kung-Kiu Lau
> Alberto Pettorossi
> Michael Leuschel
> Maurice Bruynooghe
>
> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
>
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

I vote B.  I have no strong preferences between B1 (with Maurices
suggestion) and B2.

	Torben

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alberto Pettorossi <adp@iasi.rm.cnr.it>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:51:08 +0200

Dear all,

> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I think that LOPSTR 02 should remain an International Workshop.
For LOPSTR 03 I vote for 3. 
Future LOPSTR formats and names should be decided dynamically, taking into
account also the evolution of the related events and conferences.

> Annalisa Bossi
> Kung-Kiu Lau
> Alberto Pettorossi
> Michael Leuschel
> Maurice Bruynooghe
> 
> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
> 
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

I vote for B2 + the rule suggested by Maurice or a similar one.
But, I would prefer the steering committee to be of some more people,
say 8-10 altogether, to give more energy to the LOPSTR community, if/when
needed.

Alberto

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Maurizio Proietti <proietti@iasi.rm.cnr.it>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:28:50 +0000

Alberto Pettorossi wrote:
> But, I would prefer the steering committee to be of some more people,
> say 8-10 altogether, to give more energy to the LOPSTR community, if/when
> needed.
> 
> Alberto

Reading Alberto's message, I realize that there may be a
point in enlarging the steering committee.
Indeed,

> Annalisa Bossi
> Kung-Kiu Lau
> Alberto Pettorossi
> Michael Leuschel
> Maurice Bruynooghe

is very focussed both from the scientific and geographic 
point of view.

Maurizio

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pierre.Deransart@inria.fr
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:49:55 +0200

> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I abstain.

> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

B2 (or less) plus past chairs as Maurice suggested with a max of 9
people could be a good starting group (odd number is always
easier to manage).

Pierre.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Caldwell <jlc@alpamayo.cs.uwyo.edu>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:11:47 -0600

> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

For LOPSTR02 -- I vote 1.
For LOPSTR03 and thereafter I suggest 3.

> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

I vote B2.

Jim Caldwell

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zoltan Somogyi <zs@cs.mu.oz.au>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:21:05 +1000

On 22-Jul-2002, Kung-Kiu Lau <kung-kiu@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation 
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote for 4.

> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC. 

I vote for B2, with Maurice's rule.

Zoltan.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bart Demoen <Bart.Demoen@cs.kuleuven.ac.be>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
CC: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk, Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:31:44 +0200

> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation 
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

1 or 3 (but change Internatinal into International :-)

Michael wrote:

> Another note (relate to Paul Tarau's reply ;-)): Lopstr is not (or rather no
> longer) limited to logic programming, which I think is relevant.

Maybe I am wrong, but the proposed SC (and the past program committees) give
the impression it is more limited than you want it to be.

and

> (For comparison's sake: When PADL'01 switched from workshop to symposium
> they had 40 submissions and 23 selected for the proceedings.)
> 
> I think we need symposium tag if we want to survive & attract high quality
> submissions.

Did PADL get more and higher quality submissions after the name change ?
Didn't LOPSTR02 itself get more submissions WITHOUT a name change ?
Or is the higher number for LOPSTR02 than last year due to a lucky
(non-)coincidence with other deadlines ?

Another issue is the focus of LOPSTR: I'd rather see it accept weak
papers on synthesis/transformation/development than strong papers on
abstract interpretation whose connection to
synthesis/transformation/development is (usually) weak.
(don't take this as critisism on the accepted LOPSTR02 papers - I
haven't seen the final results yet - just back from holidays -
treating mailbox LIFO)

Cheers

Bart

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mario Ornaghi <ornaghi@dsi.unimi.it>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: <lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: [lopstr] R: LOPSTR's future
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:30:25 +0200

I vote for 1, or 2  as second  preference (I prefer to mantain the workshop
atmosphere and the possibility of presenting
work in progress).

> So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
>
> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and
Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and
Transformation
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote for B2, enlarged (e.g., up to 9 persons).

 > Steering committee
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

Mario Ornaghi

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Andy King" <a.m.king@ukc.ac.uk>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: <lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:43:42 +0100

> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and
Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and
Transformation
> 4. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

For LOPSTR02 and thereafter I vote for 3.

> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

I vote B2.

Andy King

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: German Vidal <gvidal@dsic.upv.es>
To: <lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [lopstr] LOPSTR's future
In-Reply-To: <15676.11553.76564.644365@rpc63.cs.man.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0207240100370.3232-100000@capra.dsic.upv.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Dear all,

> So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
> 
> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation 
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote for 1. In my opinion, the success of last LOPSTR could
be better explained by the new format (full papers with only one
round of reviewing + extended abstracts in the old style) than 
by the use of word "symposium" (well, also the location was
important.. :-)

> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
> 
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC. 

B2 + Maurice's rule + Alberto's suggestion..

best,
german

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Maria Garcia de la Banda <mbanda@mail.csse.monash.edu.au>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
CC: Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:43:34 +1000 (EST)

>> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
>> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
>> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation 
>> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

Development does not seem to add much and means a change (or anomaly) in
the acronym, so I prefer Synthesis and Transformation. Regarding Workshop
vs Symposium I am not that sure, but since I am concerned about the effect
of the word symposium to the traditional spirit of LOPSTR, I vote for 1 and
3, in that order.

>> A. No to steering committee
>> B. Yes to steering committee
>>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>>    B2. Yes to above SC. 

B1 + maurice's rule.

Maria 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ianh@itee.uq.edu.au
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
cc: Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:59:14 +1000 (EST)

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Kung-Kiu Lau wrote:

> So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
>
> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

3.
I have a weak preference for symposium over workshop.
But I prefer to keep the LOPSTR name.

> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
>
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

B2 but then they have the power to co-opt etc as they see fit
and make up rules for the SC membership.

Regards
Ian

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: P M Hill <hill@comp.leeds.ac.uk>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: <lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk>
cc: <Maurice.Bruynooghe@cs.kuleuven.ac.be>
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:41:03 +0100 (BST)

> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote for 3.
Symposium reflects the fact that this is more than a workshop.
I like the LOPSTR acronym and it is well known.

>
> Annalisa Bossi
> Kung-Kiu Lau
> Alberto Pettorossi
> Michael Leuschel
> Maurice Bruynooghe
>
> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
>
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

B2 with Maurice's and Alberto's suggestions.
If we follow Ian's proposal that the 5 co-opt the remaining members,
then maybe we should have a max number of years anyone should serve.

Pat

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Annalisa Bossi <bossi@dsi.unive.it>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: <lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:17:57 +0200 (MET DST)

> So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
>
> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote for 3.
Like Pat, I like the LOPSTR acronym and I think it is well known.

> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

B2 + rules for turnover and/or co-opt.
For instance: Every two/three years, each SC-member proposes three names
and the Lopstr community (people who attended at least to one
LOPSTR meeting in the last X years ?) votes.

Annalisa

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lee Naish <lee@cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future 
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:42:07 +1000

>So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
>
>1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
>2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
>3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation 
>4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

My vote (in case anyone is counting:-), is 3,1,4,2
(and might I add that its depressing how few people expressed a
preferential vote, even those from countries where it is common)

>A. No to steering committee
>B. Yes to steering committee
>   B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>   B2. Yes to above SC. 

B2 + Maurice' suggestion or variation of it.  One possibility would be
to have previous PCs plus people elected by those who attend LOPSTR (you
could have a call for nominations with the call for papers and hold the
election at LOPSTR). Eg, two people elected at each LOPSTR (using STV -
I had better get my web-based vote counting system up and running
again!) for a term of two years.

	lee

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Leuschel <mal@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: <lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future 
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:30:16 +0100

>So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
>
>1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
>2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
>3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
>4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

My votes go to 3 and 4, for reasons which I have already discussed (but in
the case of 4 I would prefer to keep the LOPSTR acronym; and in both cases
the LOPSTR format itself should be retained while opening up further to
non-LP areas).

>A. No to steering committee
>B. Yes to steering committee
>   B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>   B2. Yes to above SC.

I vote B, but abstain from the sub-vote on B1 vs B2.

Concerning the size of the SC, I see advantages to Alberto's proposal of
enlarging the size, but I am worried that this might make it more difficult
to actually steer LOPSTR.
Hence, I do think that the SC should not be too large.
Finally, I do like Maurice's 5 past chairs rule and this should work much
better than the "5 future chairs rule" which is sometimes used ;-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Norbert E. Fuchs" <fuchs@ifi.unizh.ch>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: <lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:30:30 +0200

Observing the incoming votes I am afraid that I may not have been 
completely clear with my vote.

>So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
>
>1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
>2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
>3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
>4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I voted for 2.

I would like to add that I want to preserve the established and 
widely known acronym LOPSTR.

Also I would like to emphasise that I want to preserve the three-step 
procedure of LOPSTR: invitation to a talk after a reviewed and 
accepted extended abstract, invitation after the talk to submit a 
full paper for the proceedings, review of the full paper with 
possible rejection. This procedure may look cumbersome but resulted 
in publications of very high quality. My LOPSTR publications 
definitely profited from the procedure.

Norbert E. Fuchs

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Julian Richardson <julianr@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] LOPSTR's future
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:22:00 +0100

Kung-Kiu,

I vote yes, B2.

Julian

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Julian Richardson <julianr@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:27:20 +0100

I vote for "Symposium" - LOPSTR is bigger than a workshop. 

I vote 3 - "logic-based program synthesis and transformation". 

I think that to change this to "logic-based program development" would
invite many UML-type papers. 

Regards

Julian

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Don Sannella <dts@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 08:47:20 +0100

I have no opinion about title or steering committee makeup but let me
react to comments like the following

Norbert E. Fuchs writes:
 > Also I would like to emphasise that I want to preserve the three-step 
 > procedure of LOPSTR: invitation to a talk after a reviewed and 
 > accepted extended abstract, invitation after the talk to submit a 
 > full paper for the proceedings, review of the full paper with 
 > possible rejection. This procedure may look cumbersome but resulted 
 > in publications of very high quality. My LOPSTR publications 
 > definitely profited from the procedure.

by repeating excerpts from a message I sent last time we discussed
this by e-mail.  I haven't seen anything to make me change my view
that the two-stage refereeing procedure is far heavier than necessary
and that essentially the same benefits can be achieved without full
refereeing at the first stage.

  Let me tell you about another event I am involved with that seems to
  be doing well at the moment; maybe the model would suit LOPSTR.  It
  has a 3-stage selection process but the first two stages together are
  lighter than the first LOPSTR stage.  Submission and attendance levels
  are quite healthy, the community is pretty strong, and as a whole it
  isn't static although there is a kernel that has been attending for
  many years.

  The event is called WADT, which currently stands for "Workshop on
  Algebraic Development Techniques", and it has been running since 1982
  about once every 18 months, with proceedings in LNCS since the
  mid-1980s.  [... further details excised ...]

  Selection of talks are on the basis of 2-page abstracts.  This first
  stage of selection is not at all rigorous; nearly anything that is
  regarded as being in the scope of the workshop is accepted, modulo
  time constraints.  The quality of the talks is variable but people
  don't mind this; it is a good place to send a PhD student to give
  his/her first talk, with a generally friendly and non-intimidating
  audience.

  At the end of the workshop, the PC meets to decide which speakers will
  be invited to contribute a paper to the proceedings; around half of
  the speakers are invited.  Although this stage is more selective than
  the first, it isn't hard to make the decisions based on the talks.
  The deadline for the papers is a few months after the workshop.  Most
  of those invited send papers; some don't because they have spoken
  about work submitted elsewhere, or because the ideas aren't ready for
  publication.  These papers are then refereed with the acceptance rate
  being more than 50%.  The printed proceedings appears about a year
  after the event and copies are sent to all participants.  Adding
  together the acceptance rates of the various stages, the overall
  acceptance rate is about 30% which results in quite reasonable
  quality.

See http://www.pst.informatik.uni-muenchen.de/wadt2002/ for
information about this year's WADT.

Best regards,

Don Sannella

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Hanus <mh@informatik.uni-kiel.de>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 05:03:52 +0200 (MEST)

Kung-Kiu Lau wrote:
> So please discuss/vote of the following alternatives:
> 
> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation 
> 4. Internatinal Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

Based on the submissions of this year, I am in favor of 3.

> Steering committee
> ------------------
> 
> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
> 
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC. 

B2 + Maurice's rule

> Please act asap, but I realise many are on holiday right now.

I was in holidays, sorry for the delay.

Best regards,

Michael

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kung-Kiu Lau <kung-kiu@cs.man.ac.uk>
Sender: lopstr-bounce@cs.man.ac.uk
To: lopstr@cs.man.ac.uk
Subject: [lopstr] LOPSTR's future -- voting results
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:24:50 +0100


Dear all,

Thanks for all your votes (and comments).

The results are (the voting and discussion has been archived at
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~kung-kiu/lopstr/dis2002):

1. The new name is: 

International Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and
Transformation 

This had 14 votes.

Int Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and Transformation (3 votes)
Int Workshop on Logic-based Program Development                  (4 votes)
Int Symposium on Logic-based Program Development                 (4 votes)

BTW, I offer no guarantee on the accuracy of my counting, but the margins
are sufficiently wide to render this unnecessary :-) 

2. The following steering committee has been set up:

Annalisa Bossi
Kung-Kiu Lau
Alberto Pettorossi
Michael Leuschel
Maurice Bruynooghe

B.  Yes to steering committee        had 1 vote
B2. Yes to above SC                      9 votes
B2. Yes to above SC + Maurice's rule     8 votes

B1. No to above SC + Maurice's rule      4 votes
B1. No to above SC                       1 vote

A. No to steering committee              0 vote

3. The LOPSTR home page 
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~kung-kiu/lopstr/ 
has been updated accordingly.

Here's to the future! And I hope to see many of you in Madrid!

Kung-Kiu

FYI, on the mailing list for the LOPSTR community there are about 65
names. Of these about 30 people voted, so turn-out is just under 50%.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sabina Rossi <srossi@dsi.unive.it>
Sender: srossi@ihoh.dsi.unive.it
To: Kung-Kiu Lau <kung-kiu@cs.man.ac.uk>, srossi@dsi.unive.it
Subject: Re: [lopstr] Re: LOPSTR's future
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:51:24 +0200

Dear Kung-Kiu,

>
> I could not read your 2 emails. Could you please resend them in
> plain ascii. Thanks.
>
> Kung-Kiu

I had some problems with my e-mail. Here is my original message:

> 1. Internatinal Workshop on Logic-based Program Synthesis and
Transformation
> 2. International Workshop on Logic-based Program Development
> 3. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Synthesis and
Transformation
> 4. International Symposium on Logic-based Program Development

I vote for 3.

> Annalisa Bossi
> Kung-Kiu Lau
> Alberto Pettorossi
> Michael Leuschel
> Maurice Bruynooghe
>
> This group has not been voted on/in, nor has the idea of the SC. So
> please discuss and vote on the following:
>
> A. No to steering committee
> B. Yes to steering committee
>    B1. No to above SC (please suggest changes)
>    B2. Yes to above SC.

I vote for B2 + some rule.

Sabina

------------------------------------------------------------------------