I have been asked by Ali Zalzala of ECTC for this

"It is now the time when I ask you to provide me with your TF
activities for the last six months. Please make sure you include the
list given in items 1-4 of my email dates 3 June 2007 (no worries, a
copy is attached herewith!)

I do appreciate you must be very busy this time of year, but please
try to let me have this by 30 July at the latest."

A later email clarified that the report should cover the last year.

I'd really appreciate any contributions towards this report! As you
know, I have not been in the chair very long - I don't want to miss
things out.

A reminder that:

"Effectiveness of a TF will depend on two factors:

(i) How well it handles the supply of academic ideas, while
(ii) applying the ideas according to the demand of the real world.

A performance metric will include the following criteria:

1. Activities (workshops, seminars, competitions, conference special
sessions, special issues of journals, articles in popular press,
radio/tv interviews, etc).

2. Industrial penetration (success stories, applied activities, level
of support/funding).

3. Organization activity (CIS membership growth, competition
organization, software distribution, contributing to CIS and other TC
activities).

4. Web visibility (recognized as a leading source of expertise in the
area)."

so anything along these lines is especially welcome!!

Unfortunately, I don't think I can be of much help to you.  There has
been a lot of activity over the last few years with respect to
coevolution (examples shown below); however, very little of what I
know about has been done under the auspices or with the resources of
the coevolution task force.  Even the TEC special issue mentioned was
no doubt a project of the CI & Games TF, rather than coevolution.

   Examples of recent activities in Coevolutionary Computation:

   * Coev workshop at GECCO in 2001
   * Theory/Analysis coev workshop at GECCO in 2002
   * Creation and success of separate coev track at GECCO 03, 04, 05,
& 06
   * Coev discussion forum at GECCO 2005
   * Coev wiki (temporarily defunct) on terminology in the field
   * Intro tutorial at CEC in 2005
   * IEEE Trans. EC special issue on EC & Games in 2005
   * K. Krawiec's book on cooperative learning in 2005
   * AAAI Fall symp on Coev & Coadap Sys.
   * A variety of dissertations
      (e.g., Ficici 2004, Wiegand 2004, Panait 2006,
             Popovici 2006, Bucci 2007[?])
   * Intro & advanced tutorials at GECCO 2006, 2007
   * Hod Lipson's book on applications of coev (to appear)

All these events have lead to fruitful interactions among a number of
us, and they've contributed to our collective works in a productive
way, I think.  But they've all been more or less informally arranged
by one group or another.

There may have been a fair number of IEEE-related coevolution events
over the last year; I just don't know.  All I know:  there seems to be
one session at CEC ("Coevolution & Collective Behavior") this year,
and there has been a "Games" track in the past.  Whether these were
products of efforts from the task force, I do not know.

The problem is that I am not well plugged into the IEEE side of
things, and I've the impression from our dialogue here that the IEEE
folks aren't well plugged into the ACM-SIGEVO/ISGEC side of things.  I
hope our discussions will remedy that.

Indeed, I am very interested to learn what is happening in coevolution
from the IEEE side of things.  Perhaps you will share your report with
us after you've composed it?

Thanks for this info - it is helpful. The Games track at CEC is an
activity of another IEEE CIS entity - the TC on Games.

I also hope that this TF may be able to help connect IEEE and ACM
communities, despite the political barriers.

Incidentally - I meant to respond to your post in another thread. I
asked Ali Zalzala your question about the benefits of running this
group.
Here is his reponse (which is a bit generic). I would add that being
an IEEE group gives us the potential to plug into IEEE services and
support, for example, we could apply for funding for some initiative.
Here is Ali's reply:

"The community, and research/development in general, needs order and
guidelines to grow and be more productive.  This is why professional
and scientific organizations exist, to bring together expertise that
better serves the community.  The IEEE is recognized as a world-leader
in its activities, and being part of it allows individual to
contribute to community growth as well as defining their own career
path. The structure of TCs the IEEE CIS has is effective and growing
as the fields grow, as discussed on http://ieee- cis.org/tawelcome.
TCs operations are possible through the TFs within them. Hence CIS is
providing an umbrella for individuals to group in an organized fashion
that will benefit them and the community at large.

More specifically, many non-monitory benefits are possible.  a TF can
grow into a TC with a specific influence on filed development (e.g. TF
on Games becoming a TC). Organizing major conferences will allow
resource provision by IEEE (e.g. CEC). Having IEEE logo on an activity
offers higher credibility and recognition. Membership of an IEEE
grouping shows well on a CV. And so on, individuals and groups can
grow while serving within the structure.

Of course, the above may be argued by other organizations, ad-hoc
groups, and even industry and for- profit groups. Many would argue -
correctly in my view - that the IEEE is the best amongst non-profit
options. If someone has all the above elsewhere then he/she may not be
interested in joining a TF (e.g. a consultant earning cash from
industry). But there are many in our community who are willing to
volunteer."

regards

On Jul 25, 3:37 am, "R. Paul Wiegand" <p...@tesseract.org> wrote: