This is a certainly rank-A conference, comparable to other systems conferences like PPoPP and CGO. Some of the data used in the decision making are wrong. For example, the full paper length is typically 11 but not 8. I am supervised the decision was based on the CCF ranking. It is well known that many of the B-ranked systems conferences in the CCF list are arbitrary and their quality is often better than some rank-A conferences in fields like AI and CV. It is also funny the panel ignores the CCF ranking when evaluating some conferences - for example, IPSN is a B-ranked conference on CCF (while is ranked as an A* conference on core) - the recent evaluation panel chose to ignore this fact (seems like several panel members regularly published in IPSN). It is also well-known that the acceptance rate of systems conferences is high because of the difficulties in producing a systems paper. Similarly, the citation rate of a systems paper is typically lower than publications in fields like AI. I urge the panel to reconsider the ranking of this well-established, prestigious conference.

Rating:

This conference is welcoming to new attendees such as postgraduate students:
Referees for this conference provide high quality detailed feedback:
The conference program facilitates networking:
There is a culture of interaction and feedback following presentations:
The conference is routinely attended by top people in the area:
Overall, attending this conference is worthwhile: