---

name: ipsn-workflow description: Use when planning an IPSN-lineage project timeline from track/venue selection through the CPS-IoT Week deadline, double-blind submission, deployment and hardware logistics, rebuttal, the Best Research Artifact Award, and the dual ACM/IEEE camera-ready — with honest handling of the fact that IPSN merged into SenSys.

IPSN Workflow

Use this as the project-management skill for an IPSN-lineage submission. Replace every date with the current official timetable and work backwards from the successor (SenSys) deadline at CPS-IoT Week. The single biggest planning fact: IPSN no longer runs standalone — it merged into SenSys (Embedded AI and Sensing Systems), so plan against the current SenSys call, keeping the IP-vs-SPOTS instinct.

IPSN had no standing editor-in-chief and no APC; rotating leadership was the per-edition General Chair(s) and per-track (IP / SPOTS) Program Chairs under CPS-IoT Week, ACM SIGBED, and IEEE. The cost model is registration; at least one author presents. Re-check the successor's organizing-committee page rather than carrying a name forward.

Milestones

• Venue + track fit: confirm the IPSN lineage over MobiSys/MobiCom/INFOCOM/RTAS, and pick IP vs SPOTS (ipsn-topic-selection).
• Evidence lock: freeze the testbed, ground-truth reference, baselines, energy/latency measurement setup, and the dataset/firmware artifact contents.
• Deployment window (if applicable): schedule field time early — a bridge, building, or wildlife deployment cannot be redone in the final week and is weather/permit-bound.
• Registration/abstract: submit real title, abstract, authors, track, and conflicts by the earlier cutoff.
• Submission: upload the anonymized PDF and dataset/firmware link on HotCRP.
• Rebuttal (if offered): correct misreadings and supply any measured number a reviewer flagged.
• Decision: archive reviews, rebuttal, and every submitted version.
• Acceptance: prepare the dual ACM/IEEE camera-ready, pursue the Best Research Artifact Award and ACM badges, register, and present.

Backward plan from the submission deadline

Weeks out (heuristic)	Sensor-systems milestone
12+	Track chosen; testbed and ground-truth reference decided; deployment permits/weather scheduled
10	Hardware/firmware frozen; power-measurement harness built and validated
8	Data collection / deployment complete; raw traces, energy logs, and calibration archived
6	Analysis done; accuracy/energy/latency budgets computed; baselines run under equal conditions
4	Full draft on the ACM template (two-column, ≤12 pp); artifact assembled and anonymized
3	Internal mock review by a sensor-systems reader; check the IP/SPOTS framing holds
2	Limits hardened, related-work delta sharpened, page budget met
1	Double-blind sweep on PDF, board photos, scope screenshots, testbed names, dataset links
0	Register/track-select by the earlier cutoff, then paper + artifact link on HotCRP

These offsets are planning heuristics only — anchor every one to the current CPS-IoT Week / successor Important Dates page.

The merger and calendar reality

• IPSN's last standalone edition was IPSN 2024 (Hong Kong). The live target is the next SenSys edition at CPS-IoT Week; SenSys 2026 (Saint Malo) had a 13 Nov 2025 paper deadline, so the next edition's deadline is 待核实 — confirm before planning.
• Deployment lead time is the hidden critical path. Unlike a software paper, a sensing paper's schedule is bounded by physical access (a bridge closure window, a field season, a hardware fabrication run). Missing the deadline often costs a full year and a deployment window.

Failure modes by stage

• Testbed still moving at week 4 forces last-minute measurement nobody has audited — the classic evidence-realism reject.
• Leaving anonymization to the final week is how a lab-logo board photo or a named testbed leaks identity under double-blind review.
• Skipping the mock review forfeits the one chance to hear "your baseline is simulated" or "you never report energy" from a friend instead of a reviewer.
• Treating the rebuttal as decisive — it is narrow; the measured evidence in the paper carries the argument.
• Assuming IPSN still runs — check the successor venue before anything else.

Coordination notes

• Assign one owner for the artifact/dataset/firmware release and another for the double-blind sweep (including hardware imagery); shared ownership is how both slip.
• Archive the exact submitted PDF, artifact, raw traces, and calibration — the rebuttal and camera-ready must quote them precisely, and the artifact award needs them.

Output format

[Current stage] idea / evidence / deployment / writing / submitted / rebuttal / accepted
[Venue + track] successor (SenSys) edition + IP/SPOTS, with the next deadline (or 待核实)
[Critical path] <three tasks that determine readiness — often deployment-bound>
[Risk register] <page budget / anonymity / evidence-realism / energy accounting / artifact / deployment window>
[Owner map] <task -> person or role>