Computing Environments for Future IOIs The IOI has to take into account the developments in the area of computing environments, such as platforms and programming packages. For that reason, a small committee was established at IOI’96 to look into this matter. However, the issue of computing environments for future IOIs cannot be discussed without considering the purpose and format of the IOI contestant as a whole. Discussions among IC members and other IOI officials present in Cape Town, South Africa, at the IC meeting in March 3-7, 1997, have lead to the conviction that it is not a good idea to make only some short- term decisions about programming languages. It is also clear that decisions about programming languages cannot be made for the long term. Instead, we have the proposal summarized below. This document is only a working document for the purpose of this IC meeting. A more detailed document will be prepared for presentation to the General Assembly at IOI ‘97. Therefore, this document does not include an introductory section (with background information on the IOI objectives), motivations for the proposal, and details of proposal, such as a list of areas in informatics appropriate for the IOI. This proposal is intended to amend the IOI Regulations. It deals with several issues concerning the IOI contest: its form the types of tasks the machines, languages, etc., together called the toolbox how participating countries can influence form and content how the host country deals with form and content Proposal There will be a set of rules setting boundary conditions on the IOI contest. Here is a first attempt at such a set: 1. The contest focuses on informatics. 2. The contest emphasizes fundamental, long-lasting concepts. 3. The contest aims to interest and challenge all contestants. 4. The contest offers a sufficient variety of tasks, avoiding a one-sided view on informatics, taking into account the list of areas in informatics deemed suitable for the IOI (and avoiding topics on the black list). There should also be variety over the years. 5. The contest requires no special skills or knowledge (such as speed typing or concerning machine details). 6. The contest has an effective way to overcome the native language barriers in both directions (to and from contestants). 7. The contest allows for objective evaluation of the contestant’s work. The evaluation process is developed together with the tasks, and not added as an afterthought. 8. The contest is culturally and gender neutral. 9. The contest does not favor any country. 10. The presentation of high-quality, elegant solutions to the contest tasks is an integral part of the IOI. The following procedure will be used to establish the parameters of the IOI’n contest: 1. The host country for IOI’n sends out a call for feedback directly after IOI’n-2. 2. This host country collects feedback up to one month before the IC meeting between IOI’n-2 and IOI’n-1. 3. The host country prepares a proposal for conduction IOI’n in accordance with the regulations and sends it to the IC members two weeks before the IC meetings between IOI’n-2 and IOI’n-1. 4. The host country presents its proposal to the IC members, providing additional background information. The IC then discusses the proposal, possibly suggesting or requesting modifications. 5. The host country now prepares a final version of its proposal for presentation at the GA meeting at IOI’n-1. 6. The GS meeting at IOI’n-1 approves or amends the proposal. The contest parameters include details about the machines (including keyboard), the operating system, the toolbox (programming languages), types of tasks, etc. Miscellaneous This procedure puts the responsibility for organizing a good IOI in the hands of (the Scientific Committee) the host country. The SC should be trusted to do a good job, without prescribing the format and content of the contest in great detail in the IOI Regulations. This procedure allows for feedback from the participating countries, allows enough time for the participating countries to prepare their students and for the host country to organize a good IOI, and it allows for variety. This procedure requires that IOIs are not too close together. We suggest to include a rule that IOIs are at least nine months apart. This is also convenient for other purposes. It is clear that it is too late to have this procedure approved in time for application to the organization of IOI’98 in Portugal. The IOI’98 host has agreed to present their proposal for the IOI’98 contest to the IC meeting at IOI’97. More details will follow. DRAFT 3: 1997