WCNN / INNS / or whatever

[jbower@smaug.bbb.caltech.edu]

In brief support of Jordon, I believe that it is well known that the
finances of both the WCNN and the INNS have been strange for years. It is
also not too surprising that one would confuse the two, same list of
participants, basically.  It is also well known that the "everyone who can
pay" approach taken by the organizers of most of the neural network
meetings has resulted in very poor signal to noise ratios.  The
historically more "old boy" approach of NIPS has meant a better quality
meeting, but less openness.  I wish Dave Touretzky luck in efforts to
change, there is little evidence that INNS or IEEE even recognize that
there is a problem.   

Two years ago, a considerable amount of pressure was placed on the
neurobiologists who have organized the computational neuroscience meetings
(CNS*92-94) to merge with the next INNS meeting (in this case).  The vote
by participants of CNS*93 not to, was essentially 100%. Other than the
comment that very little that goes on in any of these meetings has much to
do with neurobiology, the other reasons most often mentioned where the
above.


Jim Bower    

           ***************************************
                       James M. Bower
                     Division of Biology
                     Mail code:  216-76
                           Caltech
                     Pasadena, CA 91125
                      (818) 395-6817
                      (818) 449-0679 FAX

      NCSA Mosaic laboratory address:  http://www.bbb.caltech.edu/bowerlab
      NCSA Mosaic address for GENESIS:  http://www.bbb.caltech.edu/GENESIS