Address 1.1 review period issues

The 1.1 review period was problematic. From the perspective of someone who has worked on the logger, we were too lenient and a lot of submissions that failed compliance (single-file, number of files, RCP) were eventually accepted. Here I am proposing two changes so that such problems are minimized in the future. These changes are orthogonal, so we can have either or both.

(1) Establish an automatic way of submission. This will likely have minimal to impact to our infra. Submitters will be submitting an encrypted tarball, probably in a GCS bucket plus the decryption key. They will be able to do that way ahead of the submission deadline. Submission may be made through a web-page. When the submitter clicks a "submit" button, a backend script will decrypt, untar and run the checkers on the submission package. If there is an error the whole package will be rejected. This mechanism will likely be implemented by a contractor, so we will not need to be actively involved.

(2) Instead of addressing submission failures post-submission, we will be doing this pre-submission. Ideally the logger should be frozen 1 month prior to submission and the logger tutorials will happen 3-4 week prior to submission. The last 2 times they happened 2 weeks before submission, and there were changes added to the logger very close to the deadline. After the tutorials, the submitters will be allowed to make questions on log files / dirs that fail the checkers. To hide the actual submission, we may need to provide them a script that scrambles the logger, e.g. it changes the timestamps or hides info such as number of accelerators. After the deadline we will not provide any help unless forced by the committee. The burden on us will be to have even more work prior to submission and be able to see other submitters submissions well before the deadline.

These proposals need to pass from the training committee, and I have my doubts that submitters will accept revealing their logs pre-submission. But I would like to know what the infra group thinks.

Start by reviewing the logger, its submission checkers, and the existing review-period process described in issue #203. The work is not ready for implementation until the training committee and infrastructure group decide between the automated encrypted-upload workflow and the pre-submission checking process; done would be an agreed, actionable design.