Details: Part B: Proposal Text
The following describes in detail each part of the proposal text.
B.1 – For Resubmissions: Changes and Feedback
If you are resubmitting a proposal that was previously rejected, please make sure to include in the proposal an overview of what changed as compared to the rejected proposal, as well as a discussion of the feedback received and how you addressed it while reworking the proposal.
B.2 – Research Area
- Timeliness and relevance of the proposed topic are important factors in the evaluation. Organizers are, therefore, advised to demonstrate them in the proposal text.
- Seminars are limited to topics that substantially involve computer science research. There are no further restrictions.
- Interdisciplinary topics, be it in computer science and its peripheral areas or with completely different topics (biology, chemistry, medicine, physics, psychology, law, history, etc.) as well as topics with industrial or industry-related applications are especially welcome.
- Dagstuhl is a place where you can try something unusual, e.g: Computational Methods for Melody and Voice Processing in Music Recordings, Voting: Beyond Simple Majorities and Single-Winner Elections, Engineering Moral Agents - from Human Morality to Artificial Morality, Coalgebraic Semantics of Reflexive Economics, Digital Palaeography: New Machines and Old Texts.
B.3 – Topics to Be Discussed in the Seminar
Please briefly discuss the range of topics to be covered and worked on during the seminar. In general, reviewers expect that these subjects would also be reflected in the invitee list through the inclusion of researchers specialized on those topics.
B.4 – Composition of the Organizing Team
Please explain why this organizing team is particularly suitable for the proposed seminar.
B.5 – Outcomes
Reviewers often wonder what the outcome of a proposed seminar would be. It is in the nature of seminars that it is difficult to predict the outcome. However, it does help to know what you envisage as the possible outcomes. Keep in mind that in planning those outcomes, substantial involvement of the invitees beyond the seminar may be unrealistic.
B.6 – Seminar Structure
A convincing plan for the structure of the seminar should be provided. We do not expect a detailed hourly plan. But information like whether there would be talks, discussion and breakout sessions, demos, plenary session, etc. would help reviewers judge whether the composition of the planned seminar is likely to be successful.
Particularly for short seminars (3 days), it would be of the essence that the seminar is prepared and organized in a very disciplined manner in order to achieve a tangible outcome.
B.7 – Relation to Other Seminars
If your seminar is related to a previous or upcoming Dagstuhl Seminar or Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop, please briefly discuss this relation delineating your proposal from the others. In the case of a seminar series (with two or more predecessor seminars), adequate evidence documenting the success of the previous seminars and justifying the need for this follow-up must be provided. Please note that for follow-up seminars requirements may apply with regards to the team of organizers.
B.8 – Related Conferences / Projects
Please briefly discuss the relation of the proposed seminar to related conferences outside Dagstuhl and/or projects. Please bear in mind that our seminars are not meant for a project meeting; and therefore, as a rule, no more than half of the organizers and a third of the invitees may be affiliated with any of the involved projects.
B.9 – Manifesto (Only Applicable for Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshops)
An important result of a Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop is a Dagstuhl Manifesto. Its intended audience is not so much the inner circle of experts but people who are generally interested in computer science issues, in particular also policy makers. Such a manifesto should put research issues into a larger context, like their relevance for society and economy, their applications, and their import for other fields.
Dagstuhl's Scientific Directorate acts as the editorial board for Dagstuhl Manifestos. Once a manifesto is accepted, it will be published in the series Dagstuhl Manifestos. Furthermore, manifestos could be passed to national and European funding agencies. Beyond that, summaries of selected manifestos can be published in the Dagstuhl Manifestos column of the Informatik-Spektrum (Springer) journal or possibly also as short contribution to the Communications of the ACM.
Quite likely, organizers of a Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop will be asked to present the results of their workshop at a Dagstuhl’s Scientific Advisory Board meeting.