1. The discussion leader (a Ph'D student) chooses a paper to be reviewed (See below for suggestions on choosing papers). The paper needs to be approved by a faculty member (typically the student's supervisor). Depending on the seniority of the student they may not need to have a faculty member approve the paper.
2. The discussion leader (no later than three working days before the meeting):
   • Posts a link to the paper on the SPLuRGe wiki under the appropriate month.
   • Sends an email message to the SPL mailing list with the link to the paper.
3. The discussion leader and his/her co-reviewers (typically Master's students) prepare their reviews (see below for review format).
4. Reviewers (no later 24 hours before the meeting):
   • Post their reviews on the SPLuRGe wiki under the appropriate month.
   • Send their reviews to the discussion leader.
5. The discussion leader sends a message containing the reviews to the SPL mailing list.
6. During the SPLuRGe meeting:
   • The discussion leader presents an overview of the paper.
   • Each reviewer (typically starting with the discussion leader) presents one strength and one weakness of the paper, which will then be discussed.
   • Each reviewer poses their best 'discussion stimulating' question from/about the paper.

Review Format

Paper reviews contain five sections:

1. Problem The problem addressed by the paper.
2. Contributions The key contributions put forth by the paper.
3. Weaknesses The key weaknesses of the paper.
4. Questions Things the reviewer did not understand, or ideas that should be discussued further.
5. Belief Why or why not was the author's argument/evidence convincing?

Choosing a Paper for Review

Choosing a good paper to be discussed in a reading group is more a matter of experience than process. Having said that, the following are a few guidelines to help with the process while you are gaining the experience:

1. Choose a paper from one of:
   • ICSE
   • FSE
   • AOSD
   • OOPSLA
   • ECOOP
2. Choose papers that were distinguished papers from a relevant conference.
3. Be able to answer: "How is this paper relevant to my work and/or the work of other people in the group"?
4. Can a good discussion be generated by this paper because either the topic is of interest to others in the group or you have some specific questions about the topic that you would like to bounce off the group?