Thanks. I am not in any official role with ARR (only the peer-review committee), but I know that they are working on it, hopefully it will be done in the next few days

You are right, it should be hopefully done within the next few days

No typo, the date is correct (see earlier comments to Antoine's post for more details)

You got it!
www.aclweb.org/adminwiki/im...

Yeah, there were multiple pros and cons for every option we considered. Hopefully three months in advance is not too short of a notice

In a nutshell, the current 2-month system is not sustainable, not allowing enough time to chase late reviewers/ACs and have meaningful author/reviewer discussion. A compromise (which indeed loses the predictable 15th of every other month feature) is to go down to 5 cycles a year

Sorry about that! This is part of a change we (the ACL committee on peer-review) are implementing to try to improve the peer-review process: moving to 5-cycles a year. We would release a report explaining the rationale soon (which addresses your point as one of the downsides!)

arxiv.org/abs/1907.10597