I originally posted this on twitter April 25, 2021, but seeing as I've left Twitter/X and that now it doesn't let you read threads without signing in, I thought I'd repost it here. Here is the original thread with light editing for reading.
🔥 take.
The intention of computer graphics researchers is that ACM SIGGRAPH Asia technical papers are equal prestige and use the same "bar" as ACM SIGGRAPH. Yet, the name suggests a "North American default" which is perhaps one step removed from "whiteness as default" (see, e.g., whiteness theory on wikipedia);
The SIGGRAPH/SIGGRAPH Asia papers chairs and committees have equivalent qualifications and expertise. Year-to-year the committees have significant overlap. In my experiences on either committee, the standards and process for selection are identical.
It seems either we should start to refer to ACM SIGGRAPH as ACM SIGGRAPH North America or refer to ACM SIGGRAPH/ACM SIGGRAPH Asia symmetrically ACM SIGGRAPH Summer/ACM SIGGRAPH Winter or ACM SIGGRAPH Semiannual Technical Papers Program.
This would simplify with writing/reviewing grant applications, award nominations, and job applications by directly indicating equivalence. Geographic qualifiers on conferences stereotypically indicate 2nd-tier/provincial status to an international conference with the same scope.
That's not a purely bad thing. Local conferences build community and reduce travel costs. Not all venues can/should be top-tier. In this case, our community's intention is that ACM SIGGRAPH Asia paper == ACM SIGGRAPH paper.
Regardless whether other events at SIGGRAPH (animation festival) are also intended to be equivalent across the NA/Asia instances, the Technical Papers program could explicitly acknowledge its symmetry and remove "Asia" as a qualifier contrasted to silent "North America" default.
"Asia" is not even particularly accurate (2019 was held in Brisbane and 2023 will be in Sydney). So, maybe Asia-Pacific / North America?
In any case, the way we refer to the technical papers doesn't need to be identical to the way we refer to the conference. We don't say that we have an "ACM SIGGRAPH Los Angeles paper", we just say "SIGGRAPH paper".
The SIGGRAPH Asia technical papers program has been very successful. Symmetrizing the naming convention could further boost the impact of papers published there: they're all SIGGRAPH papers. AFAIK we all intend to treat them this way anyway.
Anyway, here's hoping for ACM SIGGRAPH North America in Mexico City someday :-)
My opinion hasn't really changed since 2021. I don't think Winter/Summer is a good idea since it's northern-hemisphere-centric, and SIGGRAPH Asia has now been in the Australia (during their winter) multiple times.
I've been using SIGGRAPH North America on my website and CV and for all grant applications etc. since 2021. For grant applications and recommendation letters, it's refreshing to jsut refer to papers from either technical papers program as SIGGRAPH papers. I've never gotten push back on this or received feedback that it was ambiguous or confusing. I've noticed a few other people also using SIGGRAPH North America (e.g., Ted Kim, Yuting Ye, Derek Liu, Christopher Batty).
The term "SIGGRAPH North America" occasionally appears in official SIGGRAPH webpages/documents. For example, on the SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 website. Unfortunately, the ACM SIGGRAPH Executive Committee (currently in hot water over their decision to hold SIGGRAPH Asia in Malaysia, see, e.g., my post) scrubbed "SIGGRAPH North America" from all official documents in 2024.