This points to a major flaw in the current "selective" conference model in computer science: the reviewing process is all or nothing, with not filtering, no iteration, and no meaningful discussion between authors and editor (no, the reply periods do not count). it's not an issue of process, but simply that there is too much to do in too short a time. In addition, the surge in reviewing demand means that program and area chairs have to scrape the bottom of the reviewing barrel just to get the job done.
The field must get serious about developing alternatives in fast turn-around journals and innovative research validation and ranking methods. If biology can do it, why can't we?
With a recently published paper in PLoS Computational Biology, I had the best reviewing experience as an author that I've ever had in thirty years of submitting papers for publication. Reviews and editor responses were detailed and very useful, allowing for effective revision and resubmission and quick publication, less than nine months from the initial submission to publication, which is not much longer than, say, ACL or NIPS, for a much better result.