1997 MMSP Workshop Meeting, June 25, Princeton. Minutes from Multimedia Signal Processing Technical Committee Annual Meeting at MMSP Workshop Princeton, June 25, 1997 [First Part Prepared by Jenq-Neng Hwang] [Second Part Prepared by Amy Reibman] 12: 50 call to order Approval of minutes of last meeting. Chair's Report: major activities between this TC and last TC are the preparation of this workshop IV: membership election . nomination: Mike: A very good list of nomination, need some time to digest. Why not use email to vote Amy: might risk multiple votes Murat: It is better to have all TC members vote S.Y.: some members vote first and some vote later through emails Mike: motion -- July 2nd pm vote. Motion carried. Ray: motion -- don't go through the nominating statements and all TC members should do their homework. motion carried. . election postponed . active membership, Term of initial members: S.Y.: some TC members are pretty inactive. Murat: paper review should be cooperating Mike: A member is considered to be active if he attends one every four meetings and serve the necessary responsibility (reviewing papers and voting). S. Y.: postponing the motion vote. . Reha: a new member was nominated as the 19th nominee V. T-MMSP Moura: recollection of April PB Mtg: Ray presented JSTiSP proposal, the discussion went on in PB. The PB committee likes it and approves two publications, even though there was a concern about IEEE may not approve. The initiation would be around 1999. The consensus in PB committee is that MMSP has its personality enough, not conflicting too much with Computer Society or T-SAP, T-IP, T-SP. Ahmed: It is a multidisciplinary nature. Should be fresh enough. Ray: Rich Cox asked him to come out with detailed outlines. Nothing was mentioned about the approval from TC since this new trans. was raised in the PB meeting. Ya-Qin Zhang: CAS viewed similarly as SP. It is not overlapping with other areas. Can be cooperating with CAS T-VT (who is thinking of changing the name). Moura: When the publication is beyond TC, then difficulty might occur, e.g. Trans. on Medical Imaging. Aggelos: Trans. on Medical Imaging may not be a good example [The following by Amy Reibman] Starting 1:52. J.N Hwang: very few responses from NNSP TC members re: transactions. Seems a good idea to most. There was one set of concerns: too broad, can we find a good representative for editor, can we attract good papers. IMDSP: (Murat Tekalp) committee view: concerns on substance. Main concern, what are the contents, how does it interact with existing transactions. For example, the image processing transactions had a long track of publications in transactions on SP. Is it clear there would be quality papers for the new transactions? IMDSP does not see such a track record in its transactions. How can it be guaranteed there'd be a good transactions? Another concern: people are already doing MMSP, except that their papers appear in IP or S&AP, bits and pieces of processing on different media. If another society proposes it, it may make sense because they don't have other outlets for their papers; however we already have existing outlets. No precedence to having a proposal submitted to publication board without formal TC. Clarification (Jose Moura): there was no proposal on T-MMSP submitted to the PB. IMDSP has concerns on technical merit. How does it become distinct from other transactions. Mike Orchard: sounds reasonable theme, awkward position, because it was never discussed. We would be in a better position if it had been discussed within the MMSP TC meeting at Munich. Ray Liu: it was not known by anyone that the PB would discuss it. Unknown: PB and BoG can do whatever they want. It is beyond this TC, was a perception by people on PB that this was something that was proposed by this TC. Leah Jamison and Don Johnson had been of the understanding that it was a proposal from this TC. It's not clear there is still some misunderstanding. Jose Moura and A. Katsaggelos say it was not the case that two proposal were brought before the PB. Only one proposal, on selected areas, was brought before the PB. C.H. Lee: (Chair of Speech TC.) Similar concerns that Murat raised by IMDSP. An issue was the procedure. No discussion among TC members about this new transactions, a bit surprised by Leah's message. Most messages are negative because of confusion of Leah's message. Important transactions, but have to clear confusion that we state properly how this was brought up and why it was important and what are contents to make sure existing TCs buy into the contents. Important to get consensus or endorsement from existing TCs. Unknown: need a vote on concept, according to email distribution from Leah. Need to have vote on concept: technical concept, technical merit, what to do with proposal on T-MMSP. Procedure questions now or later, but respond to Leah's email on technical merit of proposal. Murat: Should we do the T-MMSP within the SP society or in collaboration with other societies? (Discussion: maybe this is implementation and not concept.) Do we really need another transactions on Multimedia? Aggelos: in the next SP magazine, there will be a note stating that a new T-MMSP has been approved by the BoG. Just because it has been approved, doesn't necessarily mean it will be implemented. Jose: If we as a society can't agree, there's a long way before IEEE approves. We should all pull in the same direction. Ali Akansu: no blue-team red-team, bottom line is do we make this a successful transactions. Not up to individuals, it's a committee effort. Clarify similarities and connections. Take lead, CSVT a partner, Computer society - have channel open. Murat: merits of this TC is to generate more collaboration between other TC. Should try to eliminate tension, spirit should be collaborative. Mike: draw distinction between situation we're in now and had we discussed it prior to it being brought before the PB. Liaisons, issue of how to envision EDICS from T-IP related to the EDICS in this transactions. Now we're dealing with fires instead of building consensus. We should feel we're not fighting fires and discuss the T-MMSP as if it hadn't been voted at the PB. Lay good groundwork for a good collaborative transactions. Tsuhan Chen: We should focus on the technical merit of the proposal. Do what we need to do. Ali: We should use Dave Munson's email as a guide, because he has lots of experience in forming a new transactions. Murat: Dave has mastered this once, the T-IP was his baby. He had whole unity within SP society and still had to forge alliances with other societies to get the T-IP approved. CH Lee: There's another concern. The speech community is talking of splitting speech from ICASSP. Bigger issues that once you have a transactions, you have so much support you want to separate from ICASSP. Don Johnson is very concerned that once all subtopics are separate from ICASSP there will be no ICASSP. Jose: We should focus on defining the T-MMSP, rather than discuss why it was formed. SY Kung: recommendation already sent back to Leah from Design TC. Tsuhan: We have up to June 30 to provide feedback to Leah. She will distribute to all the TCs. All knowledge has so far been through private discussion. Aggelos: what's the action item: end of month forward Leah recommendations from this TC. Mike: to come forward with a strong support by June 30 would be directly counter to thoughtful consideration. We didn't do it before the PB meeting, and we're not going to have time to do it by June 30. We need to express to Leah we have more work to do. I would like to invite Al Bovik to our meeting in ICIP to directly discuss this. Murat: We have to do our homework in this group: what is MMSP? Deep questions, can't answer them in 3-4 days. Ray: from our EDICS, how much do we overlap with T-IP: one item. Some overlap with speech, focus is on integration of media. We should work with other societies. The SP society alone may not be able to attract these papers. Murat: second question: If we stick with that EDICS how do we know we have enough papers to have a transactions? CHLee: before June 30, we can get people from BoG to clear procedure. Get the record straight, don't want to give the impression MMSP TC is doing things behind the scenes. The speech TC got that feeling, because they were not included prior to PB vote. Need to get the record straight. Ahmed Tewfik: clarification: PB meeting voted on having Ray and Tsuhan to come up with formal proposal. Ahmed thought a deadline was given, but Ray and Tsuhan don't remember a deadline. At the PB meeting, votes were taken to come up with formal proposal. Mercy had mentioned some kind of deadline. Jose: similar recollection now you have to come up with formal proposal. June 30 deadline has to do with IEEE formal procedure. Aggelos: skip a cycle so that time is given to TCs to form an opinion. Jose: if the society really wants this by a certain date, the train is already moving. Transactions should not be associated with individuals. SY: motion to vote. No second. Discussion continues. Murat: before formal vote, we need to answer some questions, before we reach an understanding of the proposal. Ali: regarding title, Ya-Qin can we get support from circuits? Aggelos: The Society seems to be against policy of doing things with other societies because of copyright, etc. Not appropriate at this TC level. Ya-Qin Zhang: typical question. Many layers in CS society. Personal position is we could collaborate. There's multimedia communication, multimedia signal processing, multimedia systems, .. Aggelos: is there some formal proposal for the T-MMSP? Ray: Got a copy of the proposal for Transactions on audio and speech from Rich Cox, and Ray and Tsuhan edited it, starting with the EDICS of the TC. Aggelos: comment in passing: It might have been a "strategic" mistake that some of the EDICS were recently included in T-IP and T-SAP. It may be used as a reason against the creation of a new transactions. Unknown: But IP used to be in SP before T-IP was formed. Unknown: Clarified that EDICS has been approved in T-IP and will appear in 1-2 months. Aggelos: straw vote who would be in favor and who against such a transactions. SY: second. Murat: doesn't understand what the transactions is, and so will not be able to vote positive. Mike: we don't know what the transactions is. We can support the transactions in a number of ways. We take leadership or we can be like other committees. Aggelos: a starting point for defining the transactions is the EDICS list that this TC formed and approved. CHLee: vote on concept. Mike: vote on our support for creation on T-MMSP with yet to be determined exactly what it is that will be proposed. Before we devote the work on establishing something, we need to agree on whether or not to define it. Ray: Now we should think about a multimedia SP transactios. When and if the Computer society gets involved, we can change/merge. Now we need to establish an identity, and keep the transactions within our expertise. Straw Vote: 10 for. 1 opposed. Passed straw vote. SY: propose we each go back and read EDICS. Publication chair has to be the one to collect information. (Publication chair leaves to catch airplane.) Mike: I'd like to clarify what we just did. This will not constitute response to Leah's question, it's to clarify our own dedication to working through on the associated problems. No complaints registered to the clarification. Motion to adjourn, seconded, adjourned.