The deadline for ECCV workshop decisions came and went yesterday, and for many applicants, the inbox stayed silent. That silence is not a neutral event. It is a decision in itself, one that organizers owe it to the community to explain with the same clarity they expect from proposal submissions.
Let's be direct: if you submitted a workshop proposal and heard nothing, you are not alone, and you are not wrong to feel frustrated. The post that sparked this conversation captures a shared experience, and it is a familiar one across academic conferences. When a stated deadline passes without acknowledgment, it erodes trust in the process. It turns a straightforward administrative step into an open-ended ambiguity that pulls mental energy away from the actual work of planning, collaborating, and building the research community that ECCV is supposed to foster.
What does this mean for you in practical terms? First, it means your time is being treated as less valuable than it is. Every day without a decision is a day you could have spent adjusting your proposal, coordinating with co-organizers, or preparing an alternative plan. Second, it signals something about the culture of the organizing body. Conferences are not just paper-acceptance machines; they are the backbone of scientific exchange. How they handle the mundane, human moments of communication says a great deal about how they view the people who make them possible.
We are not asking for perfection. Deadlines slip, inboxes overflow, and sometimes the logistics of a large conference get messy. But the solution is not complicated. A brief automated note acknowledging receipt, a public update when the timeline shifts, or a simple follow-up to all submitters with a new expected date would transform the experience. These are not unreasonable demands; they are basic professional courtesies that any applicant should be able to expect.
So here is the concrete point: if you are still waiting, do not quietly refresh your inbox. Reach out to the organizers directly, ask for a timeline, and hold them to it. If enough of us do that, it sends a signal that this matters. The health of our research community depends on treating every participant, whether they are presenting a paper or proposing a workshop, with the same respect we expect from the tools we build. Silence should never be the loudest message we hear.