This article is mostly whining that evidence-free speculation about how to write good software is no longer publishable in top conferences. And the major evidence cited is that there's a specific citation style required, a standard feature of every kind of publishing since forever. I promise (having reviewed many times for the specific conference under discussion) that no one's paper is rejected (or even denigrated) for failing to use appropriate citation style, people comment on it the same way they would comment on any other style issue.
I think that's a pretty uncharitable take; I thought there were several interesting questions raised by the author:
1. Should conference "service" be something we expect of postdocs (and even PhD candidates) rather than established experts?
> Often, as a result, the PC is staffed by junior, ambitious academics intent on filling their résumés. Note that it does not matter for these résumés whether the person did a good or bad job as a referee! [...] I very much doubt that the submissions of Einstein, Curie, Planck, and such to the Solvay conferences were assessed by postdocs. Top conferences should be the responsibility of the established leaders in the field.
2. Should programme chairs strive to maintain exclusivity of their conference track, or look for important ideas that deserve to be communicated?
> As a simple example, consider a paper that introduces a new concept, but does not completely work out its implications and has a number of imperfections. In the careerist view, it is normal to reject it as not ready for full endorsement. In the scientific view, the question for the program committee (PC) becomes: is the idea important enough to warrant publication even if it still has rough edges? The answer may well be yes. [...] Since top conferences boast of their high rejection rates, typically 80% to 90%, referees must look for reasons to reject the papers in their pile rather than arguments for accepting them.
3. Is computer science suffering from a focus on orthopraxy rather than scientific method?
> What threatens to make conferences irrelevant is a specific case of the general phenomenon of bureaucratization of science. Some of the bureaucratization process is inevitable: research no longer involves a few thousand elite members in a dozen countries (as it did before the mid-1900s), but is a global academic and industry business drawing in enormous amounts of money and millions of players for whom a publication is not just an opportunity to share their latest results, but a career step.
