Yes, in my suggestion above, the first step (review process + acceptance/rejection) would already be finished. Only accepted papers would move on to step 2. I agree that it might be better to call this “peer commentary” to separate it from the “peer review” of step 1. The peer commentary could serve as “warm-up” for more real-time interaction during the conference itself. Not sure if it could replace the function the Slack channel had this year, or just be an addition?