Here I think is where the key point if interdisciplinarity needs to be addressed. Rigor varies in meaning per discipline, philosophical rigor, methodological rigor, theoretical rigor, empirical rigor, etc. also all vary per discipline and to expect them to conform to our expectations. What strikes me is that for several generations of this conference the application procedures have become more 'rigorous', yet the complaint about the final presentation/paper quality hasn't been resolved via increased rigor or increased length. I personally thought the solution of having some people who needed to present peer reviewed papers because their discipline or department required that, was a really great idea. I don't think the move to short papers for everyone is a really great idea. I think it really constrains the interdisciplinary imagination of the conference and the organization by constructing a new disciplinary mechanism, SPIRE and its format. I support SPIRE as a place to publish for those that want to submit there, but it should not be the submission model of choice. Personally, I'd argue that we should go back to the under 500 word abstract of proposals in order to be able to locate a more plural sense of interdisciplinarity, to include more graduate students, etc. We've raised the bar of the conference high enough already, has it really brought about the interdisciplinary, international with strong support of graduate students that the organization had? or has this focus on rigor of length and argument undermined our capacity for inclusion, and pluralism of the communities we aim to serve?