One of CADE's main challenges is to deal with the fact that automated deduction is a mature field, where a lot of great work has already been done; the entrance barrier is high, and the rewards for overcoming it are low. As a consequence, participation and submission numbers seem to be struggling to remain stable, and are low compared to conferences in other more popular computer science fields. This situation is problematic, especially for early-career researchers.

There are also challenges faced by the academic world as a whole (e.g. transparency, reproducibility of results, objectivity, diversity and inclusion, relevance to society...), and I believe CADE is in a good position to take a leading role in tackling these challenges among computer science conferences.

Below I list a few concrete ideas addressing these challenges that I would be willing to discuss as a trustee. Some of these ideas could be considered controversial. That's why I ask you to anonymously agree or disagree with them below. If elected as a trustee, I will only pursue ideas approved by a majority, and I will prioritize ideas with higher levels of approval.

* 1. Organize the conference in universities and include activities targeting students (e.g. summer schools) to attract them to our field. Expand support to students with Woody Bledsoe Travel Awards and similar prizes and awards.

* 2. Lower the entrance barrier by creating a prominent public list of significant theoretical open problems in the field and by having open-source infra-structure that could be easily re-used.

* 3. Discourage workshops from having "regular" long papers, especially when those "regular" papers are not even published. Such papers have low value outside our community and we spend too much time writing and reviewing them. Our time could be better spent. All papers could be sent to the main conference instead.

* 4. Encourage reproducibility of experimental results by, for instance, requiring executables and raw data to be uploaded to Zenodo.

* 5. Evaluate whether rebuttals have a significant chance of changing the outcome for a paper. If they do not, consider removing them to save everybody's time. A middle-ground would be to allow the PC members to decide whether to grant the right of rebuttal on a case-by-case basis, and only if they consider it likely that the rebuttal could change their opinion.

* 6. Have public reviewing guidelines, with clear criteria that may differ according to paper type. This would encourage objectivity and uniform quality expectations across reviews and would make CADE's criteria known to outsiders, especially those who might be interested in contributing to our field for the first time.

* 7. Establish a meaningful scale for scores in reviews. Asking different reviewers to score papers from -3 to 3 and then comparing the papers by their scores is as unscientific as reading the temperatures of different objects using different thermometers without paying attention to whether the thermometers have the same scale (e.g. Celsius, Fahrenheit, ...). Score labels such as "Accept" and "Weakly Reject" are as meaningless as subjective temperature statements such as "Hot" and "Mildly Cold". (LICS 2016 had an interesting scale that could be taken as a starting point for discussion.)

* 8. Adapt to the age of social media and YouTube. For instance, the conference organizers could be encouraged and supported to stream the talks live (with permission of the speakers, of course) and allow the remote audience to submit written questions through, for instance, Twitter. This would increase the reach and impact of the conference and lower the financial and geographical participation barrier. Consider incorporating conference organization ideas from unconferences.

* 9. Rethink paper types, their names and page limits. Having a paper type labeled as "Regular" suggests that other paper types are irregular. Different page limits lead people to think that publication types with lower page limits are less valuable. The label "System Description" has a negative connotation in many communities, and our community should consider avoiding it, to encourage implementation and ensure that CADE papers focused on implementation are not considered worthless outside our community.

* 10. Create a public policy for the selection of the program committee. This policy could: encourage a well-defined target balance between renewal and continuity of the program committee from year to year; provide a clear merit-based pathway for new researchers in our field to eventually be invited to the committee; and allow early-career researchers to become PC members earlier in their careers, as is the case in other fields. A distinction between senior and junior PC members could be considered.