7th CaberNet Radicals Workshop
Bertinoro, Forlì, Italy, 13-16 October
Joe Finney, University of Lancaster
Mads Haahr, Trinity College, Dublin
Alberto Montresor, University of Bologna
Aims of the Workshop
The CaberNet Radicals Workshop series aims to foster
communication and cooperation between Europe's young distributed
systems researchers. The workshop targets researchers who are
as yet not fully established in the field of distributed systems.
It is aimed in particular at those researchers (most likely post-doctoral)
who are in a position to organise inter-node collaborative research
projects and subsequent applications for European funding.
The attendance at the workshop has been limited
to 26 delegates, just like in previous years, in order to encourage
highly interactive discussions. Furthermore, we aimed to achieve
a good distribution of attendees from the various CaberNet member
nodes, and a reasonable gender balance.
Format of the Workshop
The general format of the workshop was similar to
the format proposed by previous workshops. The workshop was composed
of a debate session, four presentation sessions and an ongoing
The debate session was designed to stimulate a discussion
about a predefined topic of general interest. The topic was selected
according to issues addressed by the delegates, and was centered
around the theme "Future Trends for Distributed System Research".
The aim of the poster session was to provide an
opportunity for delegates who did not present a position paper
to introduce their research interests to their fellow delegates.
As opposed to the previous workshop, this incarnation of Radicals
featured a special poster session, which was ongoing throughout
the entire duration of the workshop, with delegates having highly
interactive discussions during coffee breaks between technical
sessions. The aim was to foster an increased participation of
all delegates, by making the posters a natural topic of many conversations.
Each day was split into several slots, including sessions with
technical presentations, the debate and the project sessions.
The workshop sessions are discussed in more detail below.
The schedule for this edition of the workshop was
very tight. The first CFP was released on the 10th of July 2002,
with a deadline for submissions targeted for early September 2002.
The selection and programme preparation process took two weeks
in order to announce the accepted papers and to disseminate necessary
information for workshop attendance in the second half of September,
just three weeks before the workshop. For personal problems and
time constraints, three delegates were not able to arrange their
travel plans and arrive on time. They have been substituted by
co-authors of accepted papers that were willing to participate
in the event.
We received a total of 30 submissions, from which
we had to select 26. We applied the criteria of accepting papers
written by delegates originating from as many CaberNet member
nodes as possible. Nevertheless, we strongly encouraged those
young researchers whose papers were not selected, to submit again
in future editions of the workshop. From the 26 accepted papers
we selected 16 for presentation in technical sessions, and the
other 10 were presented as posters. For the selection criteria
we took into account the overall quality of the paper, the subject
area and, the degree of innovation of the proposed ideas and their
potential to foster discussion. The 16 selected papers were divided
into four main subject areas, namely "ad-hoc computing",
"peer-to-peer systems", and "security" and
a more general "distributed system" area.
For statistical records, we can mention that of
the 30 submissions we received, four were from authors with completed
PhDs (compared to six at the Madeira workshop), and the other
26 from PhD students (or at least candidates to). The delegates
were from 18 different CaberNet member nodes and from 9 countries.
All of the four rejected papers came from nodes that had also
had a paper accepted and were hence represented. Those of the
organisers who had attended the Madeira workshop felt that the
participants at the Bertinoro workshop were just a little less
mature. In addition to two of the organisers, only two of the
Bertinoro participants had previously attended a radicals workshop.
Workshop location and facilities
The workshop was held in the University Residential Center of
the University of Bologna, located in the small medieval hilltop
town of Bertinoro. This town is in Emilia Romagna about 50km east
of Bologna. The overall quality of the residential center was
very good; the Center is used by the University of Bologna to
organize a large number of events, including workshops and conferences,
and provides all the facilities needed for organizing a successful
The first session started with the highlight of the aims and
objectives of the workshop. The workshop delegates were motivated
to create an interactive and lively atmosphere with a greater
degree of freedom than experienced in conventional workshops and
conferences. This introductory session also included information
about funding opportunities and on how CaberNet can fund cross-site
visits aimed at further collaboration.
After the introduction, the delegates were asked to present themselves,
their work and main research interests. Each delegate was required
to prepare a single slide in advance of the workshop with all
the relevant information (such as hobbies) in order to present
him/herself (and advertise his/her work). It was interesting to
see the different types of slides presented, ranging from high-quality
design computer-made slides to last minute hand-made ones.
The Monday morning session of the workshop consisted of an open
debate session, being the topic "Future trends of Distributed
System Research". Note that the debate was primarily aimed
at promoting the development of discussion skills.
The format of the debate was very informal. We started by asking
people to identify topics that they felt were important for future
distributed systems research. These topics were noted by the organizers
on a shared whiteboard and continuously annotated, eventually
forming an ad-hoc mind-map, as the debate progressed. Many topics
were raised during the debate, but the main two were probably
the trend of using biological systems as models for distributed
systems and trust in Peer-to-Peer networking.
We felt that while the session eventually gathered some momentum,
it took longer than we had expected for many delegates to overcome
their initial shyness. We attribute this to the fact that the
delegates were just a little less mature than was the case for
the Madeira workshop, but also because we had placed the debate
fairly early in the workshop programme, namely in the morning
on the first day, after the first technical session and before
any of the project sessions. For this reason, the delegates had
not yet had the experience of working in groups and this seemed
to cause them to hold back more than if the debate had been held
on the second or third day of the workshop. It should be said,
though, that we did find the debate better in terms of interactivity
than many debate and panel sessions seen in major workshops and
conferences. Overall, we can strongly recommend debate sessions
for future workshops, but would advise they be placed later in
the workshop programme.
The four technical sessions occupied the morning and afternoon
of the first day as well as the morning of the second and the
third day of the workshop. 20 minutes were devoted to the presentation
of each paper. Following the second, third and fourth technical
session, the delegates were split randomly into four groups.
Each group was allowed approximately 45 minutes to create a project
based on at least two of the papers presented and to prepare a
presentation of their project to the other groups. The presentations
were required to justify decisions as to the inclusion or exclusion
of papers in the projects presented. The session concluded with
a vote to discover which of the projects was the most appealing
- each delegate voted on their preferred project, excluding his
/ her own project.
The primary purpose of the technical sessions was to encourage
participation and interaction between the delegates. We therefore
emphasized that projects were allowed to be radical in nature,
sacrificing some practicality for more far-fetched/tenuous concepts
and architectures. In this year's edition of the workshop, "projects"
with names such as CAR-TO-CAR, SWINY (Share What is Not Yours)
and the WHY-Calculus were presented. By and large the projects
were quite radical and hence entertaining, generating a comfortable
atmosphere and encouraging a modicum of competition between the
groups. It was nice to verify that in this workshop many non-native
English-speaking delegates were readily available to present the
projects and contribute to the good and participative atmosphere.
Nevertheless, as usual, and perhaps inevitably, there were some
delegates who were more active than others.
Overall, and although the basic structure of these technical
sessions was not modified as recommended after the February 2002
workshop, we feel that the objectives of these sessions were fulfilled.
It seems that the success of these kinds of sessions strongly
depends on the maturity and dynamism of delegates, which fortunately
was reasonably good this time.
As in the previous incarnation of radicals, a poster session
has been introduced to foster an even better interaction among
the delegates. As opposed to the February 2002 workshop, the poster
session was a continuous session in the sense that the posters
were put on display in the morning of the first day and remained
in place for the duration of the workshop. No specific time slot
was allocated for the presentation of the posters, but delegates
were encouraged to examine the posters. The posters had deliberately
been prominently mounted on stands in the middle of the room where
the coffee breaks were held. For this reason, they provided a
natural starting point for conversations in a relaxed atmosphere
and poster presenters ended up spending many coffee breaks discussing
their work. We felt this format of the poster session worked extremely
well and would not hesitate to recommend it for future workshops.
We did not constrain the format of the posters themselves. However,
we encouraged delegates to prepare imaginative designs, to present
their ideas in an attractive, simple, objective or even radical
way. Most posters indeed followed the suggestion!
The most positive aspect of having posters of non-presented papers
was that everyone was able to expose their work and eventually
receive some feedback, or at least discuss it with other people
during coffee breaks, meals or even during the workshop trip.
As opposed to the February 2002 workshop, we decided to include
the poster papers in the proceedings.
Evaluation of Success
As already mentioned, this year we had delegates from many CaberNet
nodes and from many countries: Greece, Italy, Germany, Holland,
UK, Ireland, Portugal, France and Austria.
We believe the workshop achieved its objectives, encouraging
a high degree of interaction between the delegates both during
the daily formal sessions and the social events (planned and unplanned)
in the evening. A questionnaire has been recently disseminated
among all participating delegates in order to collect some feedback
and/or suggestions about improvements for future editions of the
workshop. The results available so far suggest that this was a
very successful event with much potential collaboration forthcoming
from those who attended. One measure of this is the recent increase
in enquiries for CaberNet funding for short visits. It is hoped
that these enquiries will translate into applications for funding
and indeed, funded trips soon.
Finally, we must mention that in the end of the workshop we voted
to elect three delegates as members of the next Radicals Workshop
program committee. Depending on the next workshop location, there
will be an additional committee member, local to the event place,
which will take care of local arrangements. The elected delegates
were Rebecca Isaacs, from Microsoft Research, David Akehurst,
from the University of Kent, and Lucian Wischik, from the University
of Bologna. Congratulations!
- The Timely Computing Base
and its Future Trends, P. Martins and P. Verissimo (96K
- New Directions in Implementing
Pi Calculus, L. Wischik (44K pdf)
- Context-Sensitive Interaction
Support during Augmented Lectures, D. Bosau, C. Burger,
M. Petschinger, and A. Wacker (112K pdf)
- Performance Analysis in
Loosely-Coupled Distributed Systems, R. Isaacs and P. Barham
- Using Trace Formulae for
Security Protocol Design, R. Corin, A. Durante, S. Etalle,
and P. Hartel (202K pdf)
- Bank Accounting and Ubiquitous
Brokering of Trustos, J.M. Seigneur, J. Abendroth, and C.
Damsgaard Jensen (26K pdf)
- LicenseScript - A Language
and Framework for Calculating Licenses on Information over Constrained
Domains, C. Ngen Chong, Y. Wei Law, S. Etalle and P. Hartel
- Component Isolation in the
Think Architecture, C. Rippert (112K pdf)
- Distributed Resource Discovery
and Management in the XenoServers Platform, E. Kotsovinos
and T. Harris (43K pdf)
- The Internet: A Primordial
Soup, S. Blanchfield, R. Cunningham, and J. Dowling (122K
- Pastella: a Hybrid File-Sharing
Application, A. Kimis and J. Beacon (150K pdf)
- Salt for the Internet,
T. Schaefer (151K pdf)
- Preventing Selfishness in
Open Mobile Ad-hoc Networks, H. Miranda and L. Rodrigues
- Challenges In the At Home
Anywhere (@HA) Service Discovery Protocol, V. Sundramoorthy
- Data Availability within
Mobile Collaborative Ad-hoc Groups, M. Boulkenafed and Valerie
Issarny (168K pdf)
- Engineering Mobile Proxy
Design for Wide-Area Wireless, R. Chakravorty and I. Pratt
1. David Akehurst, University of Kent, firstname.lastname@example.org
2. Sean Blanchfield, Trinity College, Dublin, Sean.Blanchfield@cs.tcd.ie
3. Malika Boulkenafed, INRIA Rocqencourt , Malika.Boulkenafed@inria.fr
4. Rajiv Chakravorty, University of Cambridge, email@example.com
5. Cheun Ngen Chong, University of Twente, firstname.lastname@example.org
6. Ricardo Corin, University of Twente, email@example.com
7. Antonio Durante, University of La Sapienza, Roma, firstname.lastname@example.org
8. Giovanna Ferrari, University of Newcastle, email@example.com
9. Rebecca Isaacs, Microsoft, firstname.lastname@example.org
10. Arasnath Kimis, University of Cambridge, email@example.com
11. Raimund Kirner, Technische Universitaet at Wien, firstname.lastname@example.org
12. Evangelos Kotsovinos, University of Cambridge, email@example.com
13. Yee Wei Law, University of Twente, firstname.lastname@example.org
14. Pedro Martins, Universidade de Lisboa, email@example.com
15. Hugo Miranda, University of Lisboa, firstname.lastname@example.org
16. Almetwally Mostafa, Université catholique de Louvain,
17. Nuno Pereira, Polytechnic Institute of Porto (ISEP-IPP), email@example.com
18. Christophe Rippert, INRIA Rhone-Alpes, firstname.lastname@example.org
19. Tilman Schäfer, Trinity College, Dublin, Tilman.Schaefer@cs.tcd.ie
20. Jean-Marc Seigneur, Trinity College,Dublin, email@example.com
21. Paulo Sousa, University of Lisboa, firstname.lastname@example.org
22. Vasughi Sundramoorthy, University of Twente, email@example.com
23. Elisa Turrini, Università di Bologna, firstname.lastname@example.org
24. Arno Wacker, University of Stuttgart, Arno.Wacker@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de
25. Lucian Wischik, Università di Bologna, email@example.com
26. Ge Zhang, University of Kaiserslautern, firstname.lastname@example.org
1. Joe Finney, Lancaster University, email@example.com
2. Mads Haahr, Trinity College, Dublin, firstname.lastname@example.org
3. Alberto Montresor, Università di Bologna, email@example.com
4. Jon Warwick, University of Newcastle - Cabernet, firstname.lastname@example.org