Ileana Streinu is running a discussion of how she thinks theory conference reviewing procedures could be improved on a new blog. It's mostly centered around SoCG, but could be of interest to other similarly-run conferences.

It seems like a good thing, in general, to discuss our procedures, identify what problems they may be causing, and work towards improving them with a careful analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of proposed changes. But I'm a little uncomfortable with the "subsequent vote" part of the proposed events there. The subset of the SoCG community that participates in SoCG business meetings is small and self-selected, true, but even more so is the subset of the SoCG community that participates in blogs, and I'm not confident in the disinterestedness of the moderator. Isn't that what we have a steering committee for?

ETA: Sariel is also skeptical. And MM argues that the benefits of PC meetings are outweighed by the costs.