= Program Committee =

== Organising Committee ==

=== General Chair ===
Jill Burstein, Educational Testing Service, USA

=== Program Co-Chairs ===
Christy Doran, Interactions LLC, USA 
Thamar Solorio, University of Houston, USA

=== Industry Track Co-chairs ===
Rohit Kumar 
Anastassia Loukina, Educational Testing Service, USA 
Michelle Morales, IBM, USA

=== Workshop Co-Chairs ===
Smaranda Muresan, Columbia University, USA 
Swapna Somasundaran, Educational Testing Service, USA 
Elena Volodina, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

=== Tutorial Co-Chairs ===
Anoop Sarkar, Simon Fraser University, Canada 
Michael Strube, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Germany

=== System Demonstration Co-Chairs ===
Waleed Ammar, Allen Institute for AI, USA 
Annie Louis, University of Edinburgh, Scotland 
Nasrin Mostafazadeh, Elemental Cognition, USA

=== Publication Co-Chairs ===
Stephanie Lukin, U.S. Army Research Laboratory 
Alla Roskovskaya, City University of New York, USA

=== Handbook Chair ===
Steve DeNeefe, SDL, USA

=== Student Research Workshop Co-Chairs & Faculty Advisors ===
Sudipta Kar, University of Houston, USA 
Farah Nadeem, University of Washington, USA 
Laura Wendlandt, University of Michigan, USA 
Greg Durrett, University of Texas at Austin, USA 
Na-Rae Han, University of Pittsburgh, USA

=== Diversity & Inclusion Co-Chairs ===
Jason Eisner, Johns Hopkins University, USA 
Natalie Schluter, IT University, Copenhagen, Denmark

=== Publicity & Social Media Co-Chairs ===
Yuval Pinter, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA 
Rachael Tatman, Kaggle, USA

=== Website & Conference App Chair ===
Nitin Madnani, Educational Testing Service, USA

=== Student Volunteer Coordinator ===
Lu Wang, Northeastern University, USA

=== Video Chair ===
Spencer Whitehead, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA

=== Remote Presentation Co-Chairs ===
Meg Mitchell, Google, USA 
Abhinav Misra, Educational Testing Service, USA

=== Local Sponsorship Co-Chairs ===
Chris Callison-Burch, University of Pennsylvania, USA 
Tonya Custis, Thomson Reuters, USA

=== Local Organization ===
Priscilla Rasmussen, ACL

= Area Chairs =
== FORMATTING TBD ==
Biomedical NLP & Clinical Text Processing
Bridget McInnes, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA
Byron C. Wallace, Northeastern University, USA
Cognitive Modeling – Psycholinguistics
Serguei Pakhomov, University of Minnesota, USA
Emily Prud’hommeaux, Boston College, USA
Dialog and Interactive systems
Nobuhiro Kaji, Yahoo Japan Corporation, Japan
Zornitsa Kozareva, Google, USA
Sujith Ravi, Google, USA
Michael White, Ohio State University, USA
Discourse and Pragmatics
Ruihong Huang, Texas A&M University, USA
Vincent Ng, University of Texas at Dallas, USA
Ethics, Bias and Fairness
Saif Mohammad, National Research Council Canada, Canada
Mark Yatskar, University of Washington, USA
Generation
He He, Amazon Web Services, USA
Wei Xu, Ohio State University, USA
Yue Zhang, Westlake University, China
Information Extraction
Heng Ji, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA
David McClosky, Google, USA
Gerard de Melo, Rutgers University, USA
Timothy Miller, Boston Children’s Hospital, USA
Mo Yu, IBM Research, USA
Information Retrieval
Sumit Bhatia, IBM’s India Research Laboratory, India
Dina Demner-Fushman, US National Library of Medicine, USA
Machine Learning for NLP
Ryan Cotterell, Johns Hopkins University, USA
Daichi Mochihashi, The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Japan
Marie-Francine Moens, KU Leuven, Belgium
Vikram Ramanarayanan, Educational Testing Service, USA
Anna Rumshisky, University of Massachusetts Lowell, USA
Natalie Schluter, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Machine Translation
Rafael E. Banchs, HLT Institute for Infocomm Research A*Star, Singapore
Daniel Cer, Google Research, USA
Haitao Mi, Ant Financial US, USA
Preslav Nakov, Qatar Computing Research Institute, Qatar
Zhaopeng Tu, Tencent, China
Mixed Topics
Ion Androutsopoulos, Athens Univ. of Economics and Business, Greece
Steven Bethard, University of Arizona, USA
Multilingualism, Cross lingual resources
Željko Agić, IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Ekaterina Shutova, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Yulia Tsvetkov, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Ivan Vulic, Cambridge University, UK
NLP Applications
T. J. Hazen, Microsoft, USA
Alessandro Moschitti, Amazon, USA
Shimei Pan, University of Maryland Baltimore County, USA
Wenpeng Yin, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Su-Youn Yoon, Educational Testing Service, USA
Phonology, Morphology and Word Segmentation
Ramy Eskander, Columbia University, USA
Grzegorz Kondrak, University of Alberta, Canada
Question Answering
Eduardo Blanco, University of North Texas, USA
Christos Christodoulopoulos, Amazon, USA
Asif Ekbal, Indian Institute of Technology Patna, India
Yansong Feng, Peking University, China
Tim Rocktäschel, Facebook, USA
Avi Sil, IBM Research, USA
Resources and Evaluation
Torsten Zesch, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Tristan Miller, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany
Semantics
Ebrahim Bagheri, Ryerson University, Canada
Samuel Bowman, New York University, USA
Matt Gardner, Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, USA
Kevin Gimpel, Toyota Technological Institute at Chicago, USA
Daisuke Kawahara, Kyoto University, Japan
Carlos Ramisch, Aix Marseille University, France
Sentiment Analysis
Isabelle Augenstein, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Wai Lam, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Soujanya Poria, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Ivan Vladimir Meza Ruiz, UNAM, Mexico
Social Media
Dan Goldwasser, Purdue University, USA
Michael J. Paul, University of Colorado Boulder, USA
Sara Rosenthal, IBM Research, USA
Paolo Rosso, Universitat Politècnica de València, Spain
Chenhao Tan, University of Colorado Boulder, USA
Xiaodan Zhu, Queen’s University, Canada
Speech
Keelan Evanini, Educational Testing Service, USA
Yang Liu, LAIX Inc, USA
Style
Beata Beigman Klebanov, Educational Testing Service, USA
Manuel Montes, Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica, Óptica y Electrónica, Mexico
Joel Tetreault, Grammarly, USA
Summarization
Mohit Bansal, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, USA
Fei Liu, University of Central Florida, USA
Ani Nenkova, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Tagging, Chunking, Syntax and Parsing
Adam Lopez, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Roi Reichart, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Agata Savary, University of Tours, France
Guillaume Wisniewski, Université Paris Sud, France
Text Mining
Kai-Wei Chang, University of California Los Angeles, USA
Anna Feldman, Montclair State University, USA
Shervin Malmasi, Harvard Medical School, USA
Verónica Pérez-Rosas, University of Michigan, USA
Kevin Small, Amazon, USA
Diyi Yang, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Theory and Formalisms
Valia Kordoni, Humboldt University Berlin, Germany
Andreas Maletti, University of Stuttgart, Germany
Vision, Robotics and other grounding
Francis Ferraro, University of Maryland Baltimore County, USA
Vicente Ordóñez, University of Virginia, USA
William Yang Wang, University of California Santa Barbara, USA

= Main Innovations =
Conference theme
The CFP made a special request for papers addressing the tension between data privacy and model bias in NLP, including: using NLP for surveillance and profiling, balancing the need for broadly representative data sets with protections for individuals, understanding and addressing model bias, and where bias correction becomes censorship. The three invited speakers were all selected to tie into the theme, and a Best Thematic Paper was selected.

Land Acknowledgement
Similar to what has been done in recent *CL conferences, the opening session included a land acknowledgement to recognize and honor Indigeneous Peoples.

Video Poster Highlights
This year included one minute slides with pre recorded audio that showcase the posters to be presented that day. The goal was to provide more visibility to posters. These were shown during the welcome reception, breakfast and breaks.

Remote Presentations
Remote presentations were supported for both talks and posters, via an application form to the committee.

Diversity & Inclusion Organization
The new Diversity & Inclusion team piloted a number of new initiatives including:
additional questions on the registration form to identify any accommodations
preferred pronouns (optionally) added to badges
I’m hiring/I’m looking for a job/I’m new badge stickers
<bunch of others, pull from their report>?

= Submissions =
This year we followed a two-stage submission process, in which abstracts were due one week before full papers. Our goal was to get a head start on assigning papers to areas, and recruiting additional area chairs where submissions exceeded our predicted volume.
Pro: early response to areas with larger than predicted number of papers
Con: too much overhead for PCs, as authors repeatedly contacted chairs to request that papers be moved between long and short, or asked about changes to authorship, titles and abstracts.

Full papers available for bidding: reviewers loved it, authors did not

3.1 An overview of statistics
Authors were permitted to switch format (long/short) when they submitted the full papers, so the total in the chart below uses 2271 as the total number of submissions, discounting the 103 that never submitted a full paper in the second phase. Seventy nine papers were desk-rejected due to anonymity, formatting, or dual-submission violations; 456 papers withdrawn prior to acceptance decisions being sent, although some were withdrawn part way through the review process; and an additional 11 papers were withdrawn after acceptance notifications had been sent. Keeping the acceptance rate consistent with past years meant 5 parallel tracks were needed to fit more papers into 3 days--as the conference grows, decisions will have to be made about continuing to add more tracks, adding more days to the main conference, or lowering the acceptance rate. The overall technical program consisted of 423 main conference papers, plus 9 TACL papers, 23 SRW papers, 28 Industry papers, and 24 demos. The TACL and SRW papers were integrated into the program, and marked SRW or TACL accordingly.

Acceptance break-down:
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
&\textbf{Long}& \textbf{Short} &\textbf{Total} & \textbf{TACL}\\ \hline
Reviewed & 1067 & 666 & 1733 & \\
Accepted as talk & 140 & 72 & 212 & 4\\
Accepted as poster & 141 & 70 & 211 & 5\\
Total Accepted & 281 (26.3\%) & 142 (21.3\%) & 423 (24.4\%) & 9\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
3.2 Detailed statistics by area

Area
Long (%)
Short (%)
Area
Long (%)
Short (%)
Bio and clinical NLP
7 (57)
28 (17)
Question Answering
73 (36)
41 (17)
Cognitive modeling
24 (29)
14 (14)
Resources and Evaluation
33 (27)
20 (20)
Dialog and Interactive systems
64 (20)
18 (27)
Semantics
80 (13)
42 (11)
Discourse and Pragmatics
38 (21)
11 (36)
Sentiment Analysis
32 (28)
40 (20)
Ethics, Bias and Fairness
16 (25)
12 (50)
Social Media
44 (18)
41 (36)
Generation
46 (14)
19 (23)
Speech
19 (31)
9 (33)
Information Extraction
46 (28)
16 (12)
Style
24 ( (25)
16 (25)
Information Retrieval
22 (22)
13 (30)
Summarization
22 (27)
28 (28)
Machine Learning for NLP
100 (29)
22 (22)
Syntax
36 (52)
54 (13)
Machine Translation
49 (30)
53 (18)
Text Mining
101 (18)
29 (24)
Multilingual NLP
43 (25)
28 (10)
Theory and Formalisms
12 (58)
12 (16)
NLP Applications
60 (30)
41 (17)
Vision & Robotics
41 (12)
22 (36)
Phonology
24 (33)
24 (25)

3.3 Conference tracks
The Industry Track, in its second year, had 28 accepted papers (10 oral and 18 posters, acceptance rate: ~28%), and ran a lunchtime Careers in Industry panel which was very well attended. Panelists were Judith Klavans, Yunyao Li, Owen Rambow, and Joel Tetreault and the moderator was Phil Resnik.

The Student Research Workshop had 23 accepted papers, distributed throughout the conference, and 19 submissions received pre-submission mentoring. For the first time, both archival and non-archival submissions were offered, meaning that authors who opted for the non-archival version will not have a paper available in the archive and are free to publish elsewhere.

There were 25 accepted Demos, which were spread across several of the poster sessions.

= Review Process =
Issued a wide call for volunteers for Area Chairs (ACs) and reviewers. Volunteers were scanned by PCs and assigned ACs/reviewer roles.
PCs created 25 specific areas + one for “Mixed Topics” and assigned at least 2 ACs per topic area. After abstract deadline we added more ACs to teams with larger than predicted submissions

We used a hybrid reviewing form, combining elements of the EMNLP 2018, NAACL-HLT 2018 and ACL 2018, with a 6-point overall rating scale so there was no “easy out” mid-point, distinct sections of summary, strengths and weaknesses to make easy to scan and compare relevant sections, and the minimum length feature of START enabled to elicit more consistently substantive content for the authors.

Authors were blind to Area Chairs
Review assignment
Criteria: Fairness, Expertise, Interest
Method: area chair expertise + Toronto Paper Matching System (TPMS) + reviewer bids
Many reviewers did not have TPMS profiles
Goal was no more than 5 papers per reviewer, some reviewers agreed to handle more
First-round accept/reject suggestions were made by area chairs
Final decisions were made by the program chairs

No author response: due to time constraints and finding from NAACL 2018 that it had little impact. Authors were unhappy about this, they really want to be able to respond to reviews.
Video Poster highlights: instead of 1-minute madness, A/V failures have made it hard to assess effectiveness.
SRW papers integrated into sessions: positive feedback from participants, better experience for students
Did not repeat Test of Time awards from 2018--should this happen every N years to allow for sliding window?

4.1 Recruiting area chairs (ACs) and reviewers:

Response
Area Chair
Reviewer
Female
24.4
25.2
Male
73
71.7
Prefer not to answer
2.6
3.1

4.2 Assigning papers to areas and reviewers:
Assignment to areas was based on keywords and manual inspection of the paper. Assignment of papers to reviewers followed a combination of TPMS, reviewer bidding, and manual tweaking.

4.3 Deciding on the reject-without-review papers:
Our process for identifying desk rejects has been very similar to what other PCs have done in the past. First, the area chairs check their batch of assigned papers and report any issues to us. As the reviewing begins, reviewers may also identify issues that were not caught by ACs, which they flag up to ACs or directly to PCs. We then review each of these issues and make a final decision, to ensure that papers are handled consistently. This means each paper is reviewed for non-content issues by at least three people.
The major categories for desk rejects are:
Violations to the dual submission policy specified in the call for papers
Violations to the anonymity policy as specified in the call for papers
“Format cheating” submissions not following the clearly stated format and style guidelines either in LaTeX or Word (thanks to Emily and Leon for introducing the concept).
As of February 7th, out of 2378 submissions, there were 44 rejections for format issues, 24 for anonymity violations, and 11 for dual submissions. This means that a total of 3% of the submissions were desk-rejected.

4.4 A large pool of reviewers
Similar to what other PCs have done in the past, we distributed a wide call for volunteers to recruit the Area Chairs and Reviewers--we seeded the areas with volunteers who responded, and then Area Chairs filled out the remainder of their respective committees. Our goal was to ensure greater diversity by including in each area some participants who may not have been previously involved, and therefore would not have been invited if the committees were built from lists of previous reviewers. 390 of 1321 reviewers were reviewing for NAACL for the first time.

4.5 Structured review form
We used a hybrid reviewing form, combining elements of the EMNLP 2018, NAACL-HLT 2018 and ACL 2018, with a 6-point overall rating scale so there was no “easy out” mid-point, distinct sections of summary, strengths and weaknesses to make easy to scan and compare relevant sections, and the minimum length feature of START enabled to elicit more consistently substantive content for the authors. This received excellent feedback from authors but which some reviewers complained about and others outright circumvented via html tags or repeated filler content.

4.6 Abstract Submissions

This year we followed a two-stage submission process, in which abstracts were due one week before full papers. Our goal was to get a head start on assigning papers to areas, and recruiting additional area chairs where submissions exceeded our predicted volume. Relative to the projected numbers from NAACL-HLT 2018, several areas received a higher-than-predicted number of submissions: Biomedical/Clinical, Dialogue and Vision. Text Mining ended up with the overall largest number of submissions.

4.7 Review process

Authors were permitted to switch format (long/short) when they submitted the full papers, so the total in the chart below uses 2271 as the total number of submissions, discounting the 103 that never submitted a full paper in the second phase. Seventy nine papers were desk-rejected due to anonymity, formatting, or dual-submission violations; 456 papers withdrawn prior to acceptance decisions being sent, although some were withdrawn part way through the review process; and an additional 11 papers were withdrawn after acceptance notifications had been sent. Keeping the acceptance rate consistent with past years meant we needed 5 parallel tracks to fit more papers into 3 days--as the conference grows, decisions will have to be made about continuing to add more tracks, adding more days to the main conference, or lowering the acceptance rate. The overall technical program consists of 423 main conference papers, plus 9 TACL papers, 23 SRW papers, 28 Industry papers, and 24 demos. The TACL and SRW papers are integrated into the program, and are marked SRW or TACL accordingly.

X reviews were received by the end of the review period, Y others within the next week.

Importance of double blind reviewing

4.9 Statistics

= Best paper awards =

Best Thematic Paper
What’s in a Name? Reducing Bias in Bios Without Access to Protected Attributes
Alexey Romanov, Maria De-Arteaga, Hanna Wallach, Jennifer Chayes, Christian Borgs, Alexandra Chouldechova, Sahin Geyik, Krishnaram Kenthapadi, Anna Rumshisky and Adam Kalai

Best Explainable NLP Paper
CNM: An Interpretable Complex-valued Network for Matching
Qiuchi Li, Benyou Wang and Massimo Melucci

Best Long Paper
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee and Kristina Toutanova

Best Short Paper
Probing the Need for Visual Context in Multimodal Machine Translation
Ozan Caglayan, Pranava Madhyastha, Lucia Specia and Loïc Barrault

Best Resource Paper
CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledge
Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie and Jonathan Berant

= Presentations=
Long-paper presentations: 22 sessions in total (4 sessions in parallel), duration: 15 minutes for talk + 3 minutes for questions + 2 dedicated Industry Track sessions
Short-paper presentations: 12 sessions in total (4 sessions in parallel), duration: 12 minutes for talk + 3 minutes for questions
Best-paper presentation: 1 session at the end of the last day
Posters: 8 sessions in total (1 session in parallel with every non-plenary talk session) + 1 dedicated Industry Poster session

= Timeline =

= Issues and recommendations =

TBD

2019Q3 Reports: Program Chairs

2019-07-16T19:26:10Z

ChristyDoran: Added organizing committee

2019Q3 Reports

2019-07-10T19:16:39Z

ChristyDoran:

'''Reports from ACL Management'''

* [[2019Q3 Reports: Office Manager]] (Priscilla Rasmussen)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Secretary]] (Shiqi Zhao)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Treasurer]] (David Yarowsky)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: NAACL]] (Julia Hockenmaier)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: EACL]] (Walter Daelemans)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: AACL]] (Haifeng Wang)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIG Officer]] (Jennifer Foster)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Conference Officer]] (Barbara Di Eugenio)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Information Officer]] (Nitin Madnani)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Professional Conduct Committee]] (Graeme Hirst, Emily Bender)

'''NAACL 2019'''

* [[2019Q3 Reports: Program Chairs]] (Christy Doran, Thamar Solorio)

'''ACL 2019'''

* [[2019Q3 Reports: General Chair]] (Lluís Màrquez)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Program Chairs]] (Anna Korhonen, David Traum)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Local Organizing Co-chairs]] (Alessandro Lenci, Bernardo Magnini, Simonetta Montemagni)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Workshop Chairs]] (Barbara Plank, Sebastian Riedel)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Tutorial Chairs]] (Preslav Nakov, Alexis Palmer)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Publications Chairs]] (Douwe Kiela, Ivan Vulić, Shay Cohen, Kevin Gimpel)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Demonstration Chairs]] (Enrique Alfonseca, Marta R. Costa-jussà)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Student Research Workshop Chairs]] (Fernando Alva-Manchego, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Khashabi and SRW Faculty advisors Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Aurelie Herbelot, Scott Yih, Yue Zhang)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Publicity Chairs]] (Felice Dell'Orletta, Lucia Passaro, Sara Tonelli )
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Conference Handbook Chair]] (Elena Cabrio, Rachele Sprugnoli)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: Mentorship Co-Chairs]] (Rada Mihalcea, Robert Frederking)

'''Journals, Publications, and the Web'''

* [[2019Q3 Reports: CL Journal Editor]] (Hwee Tou Ng)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: TACL Journal Editor]] (Lillian Lee, Mark Johnson, and Brian Roark)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: ACL Anthology]] (Matt Post)

'''Recent Conferences'''

* [[2019Q3 Reports: EMNLP 2018]] (Ellen Riloff)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: NAACL 2019]] (Jill Burstein)

'''Future Conferences'''

* [[2019Q3 Reports: EMNLP 2019]] (Kentaro Inui)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: ACL 2020]] (Ming Zhou)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: ACL 2021]] (Hinrich Schuetze)

'''SIG & BIG'''

* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGANN]] (Nancy Ide)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGBioMed]] (Kevin Bretonnel Cohen)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGDAT]] (Jian Su)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGDIAL]] (Gabriel Skantze)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGEDU]] (Jill Burstein)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGFSM]] (Andreas Maletti)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGGEN]] (Ehud Reiter)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGHAN]] (Min Zhang)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGHUM]] (Caroline Sporleder)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGLEX]] (Anna Korhonen)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGMOL]] (Philippe de Groote)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGMORPHON]] (Jason Eisner)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGMT]] (Philipp Koehn)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGNLL]] (Julia Hockenmaier)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGPARSE]] (Stephan Oepen)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGRREP]] (Isabelle Augenstein)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGSEM]] (Katrin Erk)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGSLAV]] (Tomaž Erjavec)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGSLPAT]] (Frank Rudzicz)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGUR]] (Tommi A. Pirinen)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: SIGWAC]] (Roland Schafer)
* [[2019Q3 Reports: EquiCL]] (Marine Carpuat)

'''Exec Meeting'''
* [[2019Q3 Agenda]]
* [[2019Q3 Minutes (public version)]]