And it's a bad proposal. To wit: "Concretely, after a paper has been thoroughly discussed, any paper that still has at least one advocate for acceptance should normally be accepted."
This is a terrible idea. People will have friends who get their papers in, in return for the favor of the same.
Agree with your general point though. No easy answers though.
>This is a terrible idea. People will have friends who get their papers in, in return for the favor of the same.
But this is already the case. In some fields even double blind doesn't work because community members are aware of each others research. If you're one of two people worldwide who's specific specialization is the compression of semantic knowledge streams, you're probably willing to be money on your ability to spot your colleagues research.
This is a terrible idea. People will have friends who get their papers in, in return for the favor of the same.
Agree with your general point though. No easy answers though.