We are concerned about the lack of continuous and structured involvement opportunities across the community, particularly for early-career researchers and future members of the community.

Without more sustained ways to participate beyond annual events, ACC risks losing contributors, weakening community cohesion, and making it harder for newer members to take active roles in the association. We think the declining number of nominations to serve on the Steering Committe as a symptom of this disengagement.

We believe ACC and ICCC need a clearer identity and a more explicit position within the wider ecosystem of creativity, AI, and interdisciplinary research. While ACC statutes together with the definition of CC in the website provide a clear set of missions, sometimes ACC’s action is limited and almost against that mission.

This includes stronger relationships with adjacent venues and better recognition of computational creativity work that may be published outside ICCC while still belonging to the field. Additionally, we think it is important to use ICCC to protect high-quality work in CC that has few to no opportunites to be published in other venues.

We are concerned that limited institutional recognition, including ranking and indexing issues, can make ICCC less attractive as a publication venue.

This can be especially difficult for PhD students, early-career researchers, and researchers working in environments where publication metrics strongly influence career development and funding.

We believe ACC needs more transparent and systematic evidence to guide strategic decisions, including data on submissions, participation, topical trends, and community engagement over time.

Without that shared evidence, important decisions risk being based on assumptions rather than a clear and publicly accessible understanding of how the field and conference are evolving.

We propose a multi-author collaborative paper inviting researchers, especially early-career voices, to contribute short reflections on the future of Computational Creativity, open problems and its main value.

The aim is to create a collective document that helps clarify the field’s identity, supports dialogue across perspectives, and encourages broader community participation.

We propose a survey for recent ICCC authors, reviewers, attendees, and other Computational Creativity researchers.

Its purpose is to better understand where people publish, what they value in venues, why they choose certain conferences, and how ICCC can improve while remaining true to its role in the field.

We propose preparing an open letter for the ICCC’27 organizers containing practical suggestions for strengthening fairness, accessibility, inclusion, and support for diverse kinds of Computational Creativity research.

The goal is to help ICCC remain a dynamic and welcoming venue while protecting work that may not fit neatly into more trend-driven conference environments.

We propose an ACC Event-Partner Program through which ACC could support relevant creativity-related events by means of partnerships, endorsed sessions, co-branding, or small-scale collaborations.

This would help broaden visibility, encourage reciprocal engagement, and strengthen links between ACC and neighboring research communities without losing ACC’s own identity.

We propose a Dagstuhl seminar bringing together organizers and representatives from Computational Creativity-related communities and adjacent venues.

Its purpose would be to clarify relationships across the ecosystem, improve coordination, and foster shared strategies that strengthen collaboration rather than fragmentation.