This evening, after a local viewing of the SIGGRAPH 2007 Electronic Theatre at San Francisco State University, I had a short chance to chat with Paul Debevec, the s2007 Computer Animation Festival Chair.  I gave him the best compliment that a CAF chair can receive, that his work was a fantastic follow-up to the 2006 work of Terrence Masson and crew.  I was truly moved in 2006, and had the opportunity to tell Terrence personally, asking himto pass on to all of his comrades, that it was a turning point in my life.  The quality of submissions in 2006 were a big part of it, I do not question "T Man"'s statement that they just couldn't keep it shorter than what I remember as being 3ish hours, after which, I honestly was so immersed in the viewing experience that I can only describe the feeling as wondering where my life should go next.

I don't want to diminish last year's work at all, 2006 was a special year for many other reasons that are likely to have contributed to the set and setting of that pivotal experience for me.  In fact, I was reminded more of this than of my first ET when Paul talked about how he knew at first exposure to the Electronic Theatre that it would be very central to his life, to paraphrase very poorly.  I definitely began to feel long before I decided not to go to SIGGRAPH 2007 that the words of my friend Leo Hourvitz were all to correct, that the first two SIGGRAPHs are the best, it's all downhill from there, and that process began for me during my second SIGGRAPH, in Boston, even before losing myself for a while during the Electronic Theatre.

Coming back around to the centerpoint, Paul's response to my praise in relation to Terrence was that he put a lot of time into studying what Terrence did, attended his jury sessions, and that there was a graceful passing of the torch.  In fact, he said that Terrence was determined to help him to blow 2006 out of the water.  What fantastic, admirable professional camaraderie!

It's a shame, however, that this doesn't happen all throughout the organization, and perhaps not even every CAF chair is as gracious as TMan.  I spent over two years as the technology lead for the website trying to help improve the electronic systems used for submitting entries not only to the CAF, but for all of the SIGGRAPH conference programs.  Unfortunately the original developer of this system never once opened his ear to my offers of help, education, critique of the existing system and the amount of code it contains which can be replaced by readily maintained modules that have already been built and even received a rather official security certification.

No, there is no passing of the torch here.  I have been and continue to struggle against the self-fulfilling prophecy that volunteers [whom receive no assistance or cooperation] cannot compete with [under] paid contractors.  This simply is not true.

  "People who believe they will be paid volunteer harder than people who know in advance they won't."

I'm tired of being pissed off about this, but I won't ever forget.  Mostly, I will continue to roll my eyes as I plan for the coming financial aid year, where I am not perceived by the federal government as having need, because ACM SIGGRAPH and its' parent organization really employed me for a little over two years at a total of no more than $60k, but I was not able to bill $45k of it - according to the IRS - until the first three months of 2006, after which I hastily relocated to CA.

Every time I tell this story, any part of it, to anyone, even myself, once it's all out, I am left wondering how an organization who is not vigilant in making the payments it promises can feel that volunteers do not perform as well as contractors.  I think what they mean to say is something like this:

  "People who believe they will be paid volunteer harder than people who know in advance they won't."

Is that any way to run an international community mostly comprised of professional, often independent contractors?  This is not a rhetorical question, the answer is a firm No.  This is a way to make short-term friends you care about only because of what they can do for you, and lose them, as has happened with my valuable friendship and most of the ACM and ACM SIGGRAPH leadership I have met.

Maybe there should be an annual Web Chair - there was for a short time a "Web Program", but that's not what I'm talking about, though I do feel that program should be carefully revived.  SIGGRAPH is not just about Graphics, but it's about Interactive Techniques, which I feel extends beyond interaction with the computer to use of technology for interaction between people.  What I'm talking about is someone to be in charge of the web related needs for each conference.  Oh, sure, there is an Information Director, but it's not elected.

The SIGGRAPH Submission System, now becoming part of the SIGGRAPH Information System due in 2010, is a collaborative system connecting conference contributors in different roles.  There is no reason to me that the brightest minds in the Film industry should get together and create a professional quality cinematic experience as volunteers, with submissions collected by a system that is highly challenged to compete with the quality of your average college class registration and financial aid system - a very low bar.  Why shouldn't the brightest web minds scramble to this task?  I recall the Web Program events being quite filled out in 2005, and had it continued in 2006, we would have submitted work from siggraph.org itself, which everyone thought was a fabulous idea until we found out the program was kaput.

Now that I've vented, I'll close with a thought on this year's ET, stretching the "sandwich" rule of criticism: When will Microsoft Research learn that every last one of their speakers are just plain god awful boring?  If you can't please a graphics geek with a voice over of a bunny turning into a pool of water, please, shut the fuck up.  There are only two ways to voice over research renderings: Almost Too Boring and Abominably So.  The bunny turning into water was cool, though.