PLDI and PACM decision

Thanks to everybody who contributed to the community survey on PLDI joining PACMPL (

Among those who had authored at least one PLDI paper,  48.78% were in favor of PLDI joining PACMPL.

Among those who had authored five or more PLDI papers, 18.75%  were in favor of PLDI joining PACMPL.

The various survey comments entered were also insightful and helpful.

Subsequent to the closing of the above community survey and the town hall meeting at PLDI'17 in Barcelona, the 12-member PLDI steering committee voted on whether PLDI'18 should be published in PACMPL. The voting result was:


Consequently, PLDI'18 will not be published as part of PACMPL.

I wish the PACMPL editorial board the best of luck with this interesting and important innovation in conference publishing.

- Cormac


  1. Hi Cormac, can you post the results of the survey among all respondents, not just those who have authored a PLDI paper? I think this would be additional helpful context.

    1. Hi Jonathan, among people who had attended at least one PLDI, 56.8% were in favor of joining PACMPL.
      We also ended up getting a bunch of votes from people who never attended PLDI or had a paper there. I'm not sure why we got all that input, but I am not inclined to pay too much attention to it.

    2. Hi Cormac, thanks for providing the additional data point!

      One good reason to pay attention to other voices is that PLDI's mission is to serve the broader PL community, not just people who have attended it or had a paper there. Based on the data Emery shared on Facebook that I found since asking my question, the number for all respondents is 61.6% in favor of joining PACMPL.

      In general I think that leadership in the PL community usually does well to follow the majority opinion in their broad community, even if their own personal opinion differs. But I accept the SC's decision, and I do recognize that there is benefit in seeing how PACM PL goes in the next couple of years. If all goes well, I hope the PLDI SC will reconsider at a later point!

    3. Thanks for your comment Jonathan and good luck with your service on the PACMPL editorial board.

  2. For the record, the blog post with the discussion prior to this survey is here:


Post a Comment