Major objection: An objection that might lead to withdrawal
of at least one task in the task set. A major objection concerns an issue
that, with a high probability, cannot be corrected within the time planned for
task selection. Examples are: The task has already been used in another
competition, the task needs too many changes, the topic is inappropriate, etc.
Minor remark: A remark that does not classify as a major
objection, that is, which involves no more than a small correction. Minor
remarks often concern the formulation of the task, such as ambiguities,
inconsistencies, missing details, etc. They could also request for advice
GA Task Approval Procedure
- SC introduces task set for upcoming competition day.
- GA receives whole task set.
- GA gets 10 minutes for reading per task.
- GA submits major objections and minor remarks in writing to SC.
- SC prepares responses to major objections.
- For each task, and at end for whole set:
- GA Chair handles each submitted major objection as follows:
- SC can ask GA to vote on classification as major/minor;
then postponed; otherwise, treated as major.
- SC responds to major objection.
- GA can debate the issue.
- GA Chair summarizes situation.
- GA votes on acceptance, modulo minor changes.
- If task or task set rejected in step 3,
then SC introduces an alternative task,
and preceding steps are applied.
- After approving whole task set,
- GA submits further minor remarks in writing.
- SC provides responses to GA on minor remarks.
- Final versions of tasks are prepared and distributed for translation.
- Typically, half an hour is allocated for step 2, and its substeps are
done concurrently. Upon request the time for step 2 can be extended.
- Special forms will be available to submit concerns about tasks. The form
has fields for:
- Which delegation submits it
- Which task(s) it concerns, and which version
- Whether it is major or minor
- What the concern is
- What the response from the SC is
- Some duplication of submitted concerns seems inevitable, because there is
no immediate feedback to the GA. It is hoped that informal communication among
GA members and with the SC will limit such duplication.
- When desirable, a break can be inserted before steps 3, 5b,
- At IOI2001, step 5b (the communication of responses on minor remarks)
had some flaws. Because of time pressure, translation had already started
before all minor remarks had been processed. That is, steps 5 and 6
were done concurrently in the GA computer room. Thus, it was impractical to
address the entire GA. Where appropriate, an explicit response was
communicated to the submitter of the remark. In many cases, the response to
the remark was implicit in the newly prepared version. Final versions of task
descriptions were distributed in electronic form, with changes clearly marked
and a timestamp in the footer. We are looking at a better way of doing this at
IOI2002, for instance, providing the remarks/responses on a special webpage.
- Updated versions of task descriptions are made available electronically,
and can be printed in the GA room if so desired.