Paper Selection

We received 21 submissions and accepted 8. Submissions were single blind (i.e., reviewers can see the author names, but authors cannot see the reviewer names). Program committee members were allowed to submit papers, while chairs were not allowed to submit papers. Each paper was reviewed by at least 3 reviewers. One of the co-chairs, Pierre Senellart, was in conflict with one paper. With the support of Easychair, the reviewing process for this paper was completely hidden from him and was handled by the other co-chair, Alexandra Meliou.

Best Paper Selection

The best paper was selected by the chairs after consultation with the program committee. The chairs brought up to the committee two papers for consideration: the paper that received the highest review scores, and a paper that received an explicit nomination by one of the reviewers. The chairs collected feedback from the PC for a week and selected the paper that received the most support.

Outstanding Reviewer Selection

The chairs manually assessed the quality of reviews, using the following scores:

• 0 for an existing but not sufficient review
• 1 for an "ok" review, perhaps quite concise, but with a couple of points
• 2 for a good review
• 3 for a review that is deeper and more thorough than the standard expectations.

We excluded from the consideration external reviewers and we penalized missing and late reviews.

We selected the reviewer with the highest score (a perfect 3.0) for the Outstanding Reviewer Award. We also recognized two additional reviewers (the only ther reviewers with scores above 2.0) with Honorable mentions for their thorough reviews.