The full call, and some changes to the reviewing process. The submission deadline is Nov 1, and the conference is April 11-13, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Promises to be warm :).
The changes the the reviewing process are interesting. Basically the main change is that the author response is replaced by a journal-esque "revise and resubmit." That is, you get 2 reviews, edit your paper, submit a new version, and get a 3rd review. The hope is that this will reduce author frustration from the low bandwidth of author response. Like with a journal, you'll also submit a "diff" saying what you've changed. I can see this going really well: the third reviewer will presumably see a (much) better than the first two. The disadvantage, which irked me at ICML last year, is that it often seemed like the third reviewer made the deciding call, and I would want to make sure that the first two reviewers also get updated. I can also see it going poorly: authors invest even more time in "responding" and no one listens. That will be increased frustration :).
The other change is that there'll be more awards. I'm very much in favor of this, and I spend two years on the NAACL exec trying to get NAACL to do the same thing, but always got voted down :). Oh well. The reason I think it's a good idea is two-fold. First, I think we're bad at selecting single best papers: a committee decision can often lead to selecting least offensive papers rather than ones that really push the boundary. I also think there are lots of ways for papers to be great: they can introduce new awesome algorithms, have new theory, have a great application, introduce a cool new problem, utilize a new linguistic insight, etc., etc., etc... Second, best papers are most useful at promotion time (hiring, and tenure), where you're being compared with people from other fields. Why should our field put our people at a disadvantage by not awarding great work that they can list of their CVs?
Anyway, it'll be an interesting experiment, and I encourage folks to submit!