The BAA and new BCS membership requirements

Thanks to all who came to our second APL Wiki working group meeting
today - for once, more people attended than we were expecting.

Again, some progress was made and good work done but as expected much
of the day was taken up discussing the future changes required by BCS
regarding membership. I had a meeting with Lynne Sturgess and she then
came back to the working group to answer specific questions. As
promised I will summarise the result of that meeting.

The key points are much as we expected;

>membership to any SIG can only made by members of the BCS.
>The minimum membership status is Afiliate which currently costs =A335 per y=[/color
]
ear
>Any BCS member at any grade may join up to 5 SIG's at no extra cost.
>The Afiliate category requires no sponsor and requires only a simple form t=[/color
]
o be filled.
>The first year's fee would be waived, thereafter a normal charge would be m=[/color
]
ade.
>The BCS would be prepared to extend the free membership period beyond 1st A=[/color
]
pril.
>Our Vector publication would (could) be charged for at an extra cost.
>Our membership lists might benefit/grow from other BCS SIG members who are =[/color
]
interested in us and what we do.

On the other side of the coin;

>We could not offer a Vector only subscription
>We could offer Vector (or component parts) as a free download over the web
>We could offer Vector through, say, LULU at no charge other than that from =[/color
]
LULU itself.
>There is no lower cost memebrship status than Afiliate so some would see a =[/color
]
very much more
expensive membership cost.

Clearly there is a lot that the committee must consider before comming
back to the membership with recommendations and we do not have much
time. I suggest therefore that we undertake the following broad brush
approach;

>Request Position Papers from members which we can collate and review.
>Call a full commitee meeting to discuss our options and report back to the =[/color
]
members our recommendations.
>Send a suitable mail-out to all members
>Hold an EGM where such recommendations can be voted upon.
>execute the members wishes.

I will endevour to keep everyone updated with progress and to this end
will be duplicating this thread on COMP.LANG.APL to get a wide an
audience as possible. To be vender independant I may stop using
dyalogusers but not just yet.

In the meantime should anyone have any comments or a position they
would wish us to take please forward them to me and I will make sure
that anything put forward will be compiled and reviewed.

Many thanks to all

Paul, (repeated from Dyalog thread as per instructions)

I cannot think of any tangible benefit to the BAA of being a SIG of
the BCS, unless the association with the BCS is regarded as a
positive.  Indeed I think I am correct in saying that the financial
benefit has been in favour of the BCS resulting from the BAA's very
successful Manchester conference.

My vote would be for independence.

I raised the question before but what would be the situation
concerning BAA's assets, particularly cash, which I think is still
substantially in the black though I cannot lay my hands on a recent
balance sheet ?

I have been a member since the BAA's inception (and before).

Regards,
David Crossley

gladeyed <crossley@au-village.com> wrote in news:a37e4f6c-8edd-4773-829e-
13e5c1ca7ebf@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> [... deleted ...]  Indeed I think I am correct in saying that the
financial
> benefit has been in favour of the BCS resulting from the BAA's very
> successful Manchester conference.[... deleted ...]

I'd just like to clarify for the record.

It is extremely unlikely that the 1986 conference would have happened in
the form that it did if the BAA had not been a BCS Specialist Group.  We
should give credit to Philip Goacher and Mel Chapman for making it happen
and being the financial success that it was.

The fund balance generated has - so far as I am aware - remained for the
British APL Association to spend in furtherance of its goals.

Of course, that's all twenty years in the past, and the arguments that held
sway at that time may not be valid today.

Hi there,

I no longer work in IT in a full-time capacity but I am still a member
of the BAA and look forward to my copies of the Vector magazine
(although much is often over my head!). I still maintain a personal
licence for APL2 with which I "play" more as an academic exercise
(e.g. Game of Life, emulation of Enigma machine etc.)although I do
occasionally develop "useful" software for other business interests.

During over 30 years in IT, 20-odd of which were freelance, I never
wanted to be a member of the BCS. I certainly don't want to pay =A388 a
year to be a member of an organisation I don't want to be a member of,
in order to pay the BAA =A320 a year to continue to receive my copies of
Vector.

It strikes me that some accountant bod in the BCS has seen this as a
means of increasing the BCS's revenue stream with little effort -
bringing members of the Special Interest Groups into the BCS fold
kicking and screaming. I think it may have the effect of losing some
of the SIGs' members - which may make them less viable - and will
create an unwanted and quite unnecessary level of animosity. It all
seems a bit Big Brotherish - and there's more than enough of that
around now.

I've been a member of the BAA since the late 80s and I still want to
pay my BAA subs and get my Vector magazine. I'd even be happy to pay
an increased BAA sub as long as I didn't have to join the BCS.

</soap_box>

BCS slammed as oudated and irrelevant:

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2...ms-outdated-bcs

Haven't we been here before ? I seems to remember being threatened with
compulsory BCS membership before,
presumably when BAA became SIG of BCS.....
I did not like it then, I won't join now.
Regards,
Martin

I've never felt greatly inclined to join the BCS. It seems too much
like it was trying to set itself up as the only arbitor of standards
in the British It arena - which patently it's not.

I accept your argument Dick, that we wouldn't have the money from the
conference if we hadn't been a BCS SIG at the time, but personally, if
I'd realised that all our subscriptions were just going directly into
BCS funds, I would have blocked HMW being a sustaining member for the
past twenty years. We've contributed thousands of pounds in the belief
we were keeping the BAA going, when all along we were just adding to
BCS funds.

I feel cheated.

I agree with David, if this is to be impose don us, I for one will not
join the BCS.

I'd like to point out Paul's call for "position papers", I agreed with
that at the Wiki meeting. We need to set out all of the pros and cons
of staying & leaving & see if we can have a manifesto(? not really the
correct word)for us to vote on at an EGM.

Also as the BAA membership is several hundred strong & the largest
meeting we've ever had was only 30-40, is there the possibility of
inviting votes online or by post from all these members? Tat would be
up to the BAA committee who hold the subscription lists.

Chris