More than a week ago,
I heard the very sad news that David Johnson has passed away after one year
fight with cancer. I felt that I should write a memorial note for him. Indeed I
have done the same for Mihai Pătraşcu in the same blog and both Mihai and David were very similar to
me from several aspects: both were my colleagues at AT&T and more
importantly my dear friends, both they got their Ph.D. from MIT (the same place
that I got my Ph.D. as well), they both were extraordinary researchers, and
both passed away due to cancer after almost a year-long fight with it (and I
was closely aware of their situations in that year). Indeed David read my memo
for Mihai and he told me that he liked it. In addition, there is another reason that I feel respect for David; he was just a bit older than my father who also passed away very recently. So here I would like to put my
thoughts into words for David (and this took me more time in this case
since I wanted to mention some new thoughts given the comments already
in this blog). To do so, I would like to mention some of David’s personal characteristics
that I appreciated a lot and give some examples on them from my interactions
with him. Indeed I have even mentioned some of these to him when he was alive
and told him because of these (and other reasons), I am always proud to mention
that I have him as my boss at some point in my career.
First of all, David
was very humble and modest especially given his extraordinary CV: he won several awards especially Knuth
prize, he is the co-author of one of the top most-cited books in CS, he was
fellows of almost every community that he was involved with (e.g., ACM, SIAM,
AT&T), he was a member and the chair of several prestigious award
committees (like Gödel, Knuth, ACM Kanellakis, ACM Thesis Award) and indeed he was a founder of some of them (e.g.,
Kanellakis), and he was the founder of SODA, the best algorithms conference,
among others. Despite all this he was a very humble and modest man and I think
lots of people who interacted with him will fully agree on this. Just to give
an example, in 1998, while I was still a second-year undergrad at Sharif
University, I sent him an email asking whether he was aware of any book similar
to Garey & Johnson but for parallel computing (indeed this was my first remote
interaction with him); I was shocked how fast he answered my email just in a couple
of hours with a relevant reference. This was especially very exciting and encouraging
for me, since several other people never answered my emails at that time. More
interestingly, later in 2012, I told him personally that I admired him for answering
that email. He told me just wait a second and in a couple of minutes, he could
find the exact same email from 1998 that I sent him; then we even discussed
some English improvements for the email text as well.
Second he was a
perfectionist from several aspects. Here are some examples. He was often the
reviewer for P=NP or P!=NP papers for several journals. Probably lots of us
even do not look into these papers unless written by a well-known fellow; however
he was reading these papers very carefully to find the exact bugs and mention
them to the authors. Indeed even when I sent him several referee requests for
conferences for which I severed as a PC member, he always spent a lot of time
to read the paper very carefully and often came with novel improvements and
simplifications, sometime in a extend that authors of the paper under review
wanted to have this anonymous referee as a co-author. All these happened despite
he was a very busy man; however he still considered the task of refereeing a
paper very seriously and respected the authors (and I think this is an example
that lots of us can learn from it). He was a very good writer as well and spent
a lot of time to improve the presentation of a paper, simplify it, and present
it in a perfect way. I am proud to have one paper coauthored with David, a very
long paper with several co-authors. On this paper David had the lead and indeed
spent all the years that I was with AT&T (and even after than) to prepare
the journal version of the paper. Indeed he was sending us the almost final
version on Dec 2014 (and asked us for comments) just a month before he was
diagnosed with cancer (I hope that still we can send the paper to a journal
given the time that David spent on it). Another example of his perfectionism: he
attended ALL SODA while he was alive and almost ALL STOC and FOCS (expect 1-2
years that AT&T had travel restrictions). Not only that, anytime that there
was any talk in the conference, he attended at least one session. Yet another
example: we had group lunches every day at AT&T. That was David’s habit to ask everyone in the
group to see whether they want to join. Now the interesting point was that he
came exactly at noon EVERY DAY and you could even set your watch for 12pm when you
saw him for lunch.
He was founder of SODA,
the best algorithms conference. Indeed lots of us know David because he was the
founder of SODA and he was handling SODA business meetings for lots of year as
the chair of the steering committee. As a result, I often had lots of
discussion with him regarding SODA and its future. We discussed what the
protocol for selecting the chair of SODA should be, whether SODA should have an
official Rebuttal Phase or not, etc. During discussion even some interesting
topics came up which are good to discuss in the community as well. David
believed since SODAs (and in general other major TCS conferences) are the main
venues for publications but still we need full and correct mathematical proofs
for our claims (despite the rest of CS), we should have a five-year period that any major claims and theorems for which the
authors do not provide full proofs in a verifiable manner in arxiv or in a
journal during these five years should be considered officially open for
everyone to grab, prove formally, and get the full credit for that. Another
discussion was that ideally SODA (and again other major TCS conferences) should go double-blind like lots of
other major CS conferences in other fields. This will help to have much more
fair selection in which the name of authors do not give advantage/disadvantage
for acceptance (though PC chair still could see the author lists for some
extreme cases).
I can probably write
pages and pages of other memories on David’s excellent personal characteristics
(e.g. he was a marathon runner, he held the annual barbecue for
AT&T/Bell-labs theory interns, researchers, and alumni for more than two
decades, he served in Army between his
Masters and Ph.D. and kept the same types of spirits and disciplines in the
rest of his life, he always emphasized on putting his middle initial “S.” in
his name especially due to Airport Security since his name is a very common
name, etc), but I think I should stop at this point.
I hope that we have a
great memorial event for him in the next SODA (SODA’17) the conference that he
founded.
Rest in Peace David,
From Mohammad
Actually the idea of double-blind is a very good idea for theory conference. RIP David.
ReplyDelete