List of Approved TC Motions
|Maintain WACV’s tradition of being receptive to applications papers
|In order to maintain WACV’s tradition of being receptive to applications papers:
– WACV PCs shall create a mechanism (such as a separate track) for authors to designate their submissions as applications papers;
Submissions designated as applications papers shall not be rejected due solely to a lack of algorithmic novelty as long as the paper describes a distinct application that is consistent with the experimental protocol and/or datasets.
|Scott McCloskey (Kitware) and endorsed by the TC chair
|Support for Program Chairs
|The conference sponsors will provide assistance to PC teams in securing a technical chair, up to and including financial assistance.
|Andreas Geiger (University of Tübingen) and Svetlana Lazebnik (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
|Support for Area Chairs
|Area Chairs (and Senior Area Chairs, if any) will receive complimentary in-person registrations for the conference for which they are serving. Free AC registration will always be included in the conference budget, though it may be adjusted or removed if a conference is in the position of taking a financial loss.
|Proposed by Andreas Geiger (University of Tübingen), Judy Hoffman (Georgia Institute of Technology), Ross Girshick (Facebook), Svetlana Lazebnik (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Vladlen Koltun (Apple)
|Repeal of the CVPR Social Media Ban
|Effective with the CVPR 2024 conference, authors will be allowed to post to social media about their papers in submission. However, until the final accept/reject decisions are released by the conference, posts to social media must not identify the conference name. If enacted, this motion supersedes all prior motions on social media.
|Proposed by Abhinav Shrivastava (University of Maryland), Andrew Owens (University of Michigan), Angjoo Kanazawa (University of California Berkeley), Carl Vondrick (Columbia University), David Fouhey (University of Michigan), Deepak Pathak (Carnegie Mellon University), Georgia Gkioxari (Caltech), Jia Deng (Princeton University), Jiajun Wu (Stanford University), Judy Hoffman (Georgia Institute of Technology), Justin Johnson (University of Michigan), Katie Bouman (Caltech), Manolis Savva (Simon Fraser University), Mengye Ren (New York University), Olga Russakovsky (Princeton University), Phillip Isola (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Saining Xie (New York University), Sara Beery (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Shubham Tulsiani (Carnegie Mellon University), Shuran Song (Columbia University), Xiaolong Wang (University of California San Diego), Zsolt Kira (Georgia Institute of Technology)
|Withdrawn Submissions Will No Longer be Made Inaccessible to Reviewers.
|After reviews have been released, authors may opt to withdraw their submission which currently makes this submission inaccessible to the involved reviewers. In turn, this practice prevents reviewers from reading the assessment of the other reviewers. However, reviewers may want to hear what their peers had to say to improve their own reviewing skills. For example, reviewers may wonder whether their assessment is in line with the reviews of others or whether they missed any key points. To change this, this motion aims to end the practice of making withdrawn submissions inaccessible to reviewers such that they have the option to grow from the assessments of their peers.
|Simon Niklaus (Adobe Research)
|Making Authors Responsible for Reviewing.
|Given the importance of high-quality reviewing to CVPR, the need for every paper to have at least 3 reviews, and the presence of authors who benefit professionally from the community but do not contribute any service to it, the following change to the review process is proposed:
All authors, except those who are area/general chairs, are automatically added to the reviewer pool. Area chairs may assign up to 3 papers to these author-reviewers, per author submission, but may also choose to not assign any papers. Only the program chairs can provide exceptions to authors for these reviewing duties, e.g., for medical or family reasons.
|Terry Boult (UCCS)
|Penalties for Violations of the CVPR Reviewing Guidelines.
|Any reviewer who has accepted an invitation to review but violates the reviewing guidelines set forth by the conference will be prohibited from submitting any papers to CVPR for up to two years. Only area chairs and program chairs will be allowed to flag such violations. The program chairs will make the final decision to apply a penalty to a reviewer based on the recommendation of an area chair and/or their own judgement. Reviewers with an active penalty will be placed on a list, maintained by the PAMI TC, which will be provided to the program chairs of each edition of CVPR.
In order to set appropriate expectations, all reviewers will read and agree to the reviewing guidelines after accepting the invitation to review. Further, reviewers will be required to take and pass a short quiz that emphasizes the most salient aspects of the guidelines. Scores from these quizzes will be made available to the area chairs and program chairs during the reviewer assignment phase of the review cycle.
|Terry Boult (UCCS) and Walter Scheirer (Notre Dame)
|CVPR Statement Condemning Russian Invasion of Ukraine.
|CVPR condemns in the strongest possible terms the actions of the Russian Federation government in invading the sovereign state of Ukraine and engaging in war against the Ukrainian people. We express our solidarity and support for the people of Ukraine and for all those who have been adversely affected by this war.
The statement will be published on the CVPR homepage(s) while the war is ongoing.
|Anna Rohrbach (Berkeley)
|Penalties for Dual Submissions
|This proposal seeks to reduce dual submissions to our primary meetings by increasing the consequences of dual submission beyond rejection of the offending paper.
Please see the administrative note at the end of the motion concerning potential legal and administrative uncertainties regarding implementation of the policy, which would have to be resolved before the proposed penalties could be applied. Read more
|Dima Damen (University of Bristol)
|Green Computer Vision
|This proposal encourages, but does not require, authors to report model efficiency metrics so that methods can be compared not only in terms of the usual metrics but in terms of their potential climate change impacts as well. Read more
|ICCV Planning Window
|The motion to move from a four-year planning window to a six-year one for ICCV was also approved. As we’ve grown larger, the pool of suitable meeting locations has grown smaller, which has made securing good locations difficult. This change will hopefully help.
This transition leaves us with the question of how to decide the location and organizing team for ICCV 2025. If we wait until ICCV 2021 to vote on it, that leaves that team only four years lead time to secure a suitable location, the very problem we’re trying to avoid by moving to a six-year window. There were two options presented for voting on at ICCV: a) vote on the location and team for ICCV 2025 at CVPR 2020, or b) have the TC’s executive committee — which functions as the conference’s steering committee — select the location and team for ICCV 2025. A strong majority of those voting were in favor of voting on ICCV 2025 at CVPR 2021 so that it is still decided by community vote, even at CVPR instead of ICCV. This means that ICCV 2025 will be voted on at CVPR 2021. ICCV 2027 will then be voted on at ICCV 2021.
|Country Change with Geographic Rotation
|The motion that ICCV will not normally be held in the same country on successive geographic rotations was also approved. This hopefully avoids bias in the voting caused by a large number of attendees from the host country (which is otherwise a very good thing!).
|5-year Planning Window for CVPR
|CVPR will move from a four-year advance planning window for future meetings to a five-year window. In transition, the PAMI TC executive committee is authorized to select the location and organizing team for CVPR 2024, subject to ratification at CVPR 2020. CVPR 2025 proposals will then be voted on next year at CVPR 2020.
|Selection of a Runner-Up Conference Bid as the Winner for a Subsequent Year
|When there are two CVPR proposals with strong support, the PAMI TC executive committee is authorized, but not required, to award the following year’s conference to the
|Ratification of the New Conference Name
|The CVPR sponsors (CVF and IEEE) have agreed to change the name of this conference to include both sponsors. Following this agreement, the official name of CVPR is hereby changed to the “IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition”. CVPR is financially co-sponsored equally by IEEE and CVF.
|Modification of the Longuet-Higgins Prize Rules
|The Longuet-Higgins Prize is awarded at CVPR for a paper published at the CVPR 10 years before. In exceptional circumstances where a clearly deserving paper was overlooked, a unanimous vote of the PAMITC Awards Committee can give this prize to a paper from the CVPR 11 years before.
|Forbidding Additional Experiments in Rebuttals
|With the growing importance of experimental work, CVPR authors frequently find themselves requested to run complex experiments in the very limited time provided for the rebuttal. Program chairs are strongly encouraged to forbid additional experiments during rebuttal, and to ensure that reviewers do not penalize papers due to the lack of additional experiments.
|Code of Conduct
|The Code of Conduct (based on the one for this year’s meeting) is adopted
for future meetings of CVPR. The policy will be refined and overseen by the TC executive committee as necessary, which will also appoint the conference ombud and standards committee.
|Eligibility for TC Chair
|The requirements for candidates for the PAMI TC chair position are amended to include not only those who have served as a general chair or program chair of a past or approved future CVPR or ICCV but to also include anyone else with significant experience working with the TC’s meetings or journal and approval of the TC’s executive committee.
|Chaning the Name of ICCV
|The ICCV sponsors (CVF and IEEE) have agreed to change the name of this conference to include both sponsors. Following this agreement, the official name of ICCV is hereby changed to the “IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision”. ICCV is financially co-sponsored equally by IEEE and CVF.
|Changing the Structure of ICCV
|The existing structure of ICCV17 (every other year, single track orals) should be changed to adapt the growth of the field. This led to a subsequent motion to decide the type of change. Ultimately, ICCV moved to having 2 oral tracks while continuing to meet every other year.
|Change in CVPR Bidding Timeline
|The CVPR 2021 team and venue will be voted on at CVPR 2017, and from then on all future venues will be voted on 4 years in advance.
|TC Executive Committee Oversight of the CVPR Site Selection Process
|The TC Executive Committee is charged with reviewing the CVPR site selection process, to determine the tradeoffs involved with limiting set of sites. A report should be prepared in time for CVPR 2017, along with any motions.
|Discolsure of Competing Financial Interests
|Authors of all CVPR papers are required to add a statement right after the acknowledgments section and before the reference list that specifies whether they have a competing financial interest. The statement should be as short as possible but must disclose all financial benefits (e.g., company ownership, stocks, paid consultancy, gifts, etc.). Such a statement may be omitted if the competing financial interest is already clear from the affiliation of one or more authors on the paper or from acknowledged funding. A good definition of competing finance interests can be found in the policy used by Nature.
|Interactions with the Media
|Papers submitted to CVPR must not be discussed with the media until they have been officially accepted for publication. Violations of the embargo will result in the paper being removed from the conference and proceedings.
|CVPR will publish errata for papers from previous conferences. Authors may submit an erratum in the standard CVPR format. Such submissions will be reviewed by the program committee or may be delgated to an Errata Chair. Submissions should be titled “Erratum to: , (CVPR )”. Errata that are accepted for publication will appear in the proceedings in a separate Errata section. Errata will not be prsented at the conference. Note that errata are designed to correct small errors in a paper and are not a mechanism for dealing with fraudulent results. Fraudulent papers should be formally retracted.
|Childcare at CVPR
|CVPR organizers are strongly encouraged to provide babysitting or daycare facilities for infants and young children during all official conference activites inlcuding oral sessions, poster sessions, and social events. When registering for the conference, attendees will be able to state their needs in advance. The cofnerence organizers will then attempt to provide appropriate facilities. Costs, including insurance, will be borne by the conference through the genral registration fees or from corporate gifts.
|GC Paper Submission: CVPR
|General chairs are permitted to submit papers to CVPR, but only if the program chairs guarantee that the general chairs will have the exact same access and software privileges regarding the reviewing process that are available to every author.
|It is strongly recommended that CVPR publish, for each accepted paper, the reviews, meta-reviews and author rebuttals in anonymous format. This information should be made publicly available in the CVF archive of CVPR papers.
|Double Blind Policy
|A CVPR submission whose authors can only be identified with the aid, of external information, such as web search, is not in violation of the “double blind” policy.
|New CVPR Charter
|The revised CVPR charter is hereby adopted.
|GC Paper Submission: ICCV
|General chairs are permitted to submit papers to ICCV, but only if the program chairs guarantee that the general chairs will have the exact same access and software privileges regarding the reviewing process that are available to every author.
|ICCV Bylaws and Charter
|The revised TC bylaws and new charter are hereby adopted.