🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5 Aug 92 17:29:51 GMT, cjackso@nv6 (Clay Jackson) said:

> 1)  There is tremendous competition for one's "leisure" time. More and
>     more ways to waste time.

That is true. And, alas, usenet is one of them. But what is one person's waste
is valuable to someone else. It is clear that those of us who do volunteer are
a small subset (I understand they're opening a special psychiatric discipline
just for us :-)).

> 2)  There is less "lesiure" time available, especially in today's (poor)
>     economic climate. Those of us who haven't been laid off are busy
>     doing our work and the work of those who were (or the people that
>     weren't hired to keep up with increased workload).

*For me*, this is why I find my ACM involvement so valuable. The networking I
do on the local and the national level is invaluable for building the
recognition I need in case the unthinkable happens.

> 3)  There's less money being spent by corporations on things like 
>     professional development and participation.

I don't expect my company to fund these things.

> 4)  Computer Science enrollments are down and are CONTINUING to
>     decline.

Somehow, we must change this trend.

> Given all of this, ACM needs to change.  I think we all agree that the
> status quo is unacceptable, and, if it continues, things will get even 
> worse.  

You know what -- ACM would agree with you. So would the SIGs (at least that
was one of the undercurrants at the last SIG meeting) and the Local Chapters.

> My local chapter is now in death throes, following a decline that
> started in the late 80s.  I suspect that's not uncommon.  

LA's been having a slow decline. I wonder how much of this is changing
industry, with more computers in the hands of more people. We're less a
specialization now.

> In the face of this, what has been the response of the volunteers that 
> Dan comments have been around forever:

> 1)  A full time art director was hired - and the quality/readability of
> CACM has gone down.

I don't know. Constrast CACM with what it was 10 years ago (the black and blue
covers). I think the readability has gone up markedly. They've dropped some
(IMHO) useful sections, like Programming Pearls and the Case Studys, but on
the whole the papers selected are much more useful than issues of old. There
are occasional layout problems, but I don't read CACM for the layout, I read
it for the articles.

> 2)  The "quality" of headquarters services has gone down, despite heroic
> efforts on the part of individual staffers (for example, look at the
> delays in TOSEM, and when it finally DID some out, how many folks got
> duplicate copies).

There are occasional glitches. I'm intimately aware of HQ services and its
costs by being a SIG chair. We've been pushing to reduce those costs and make
HQ more efficient. I think, at least in the SIG area, that service has gone up
remarkably (its still not perfect). We've got much better Email connectivity.
There are the occasional problems, such as duplicate copies. However, put
blame where blame is due. Delays in publications are often not the fault of
HQ, but of the editor and the reviewers not getting the material to HQ to be
published.

> 3)  The service(s) provided to local chapters/sigs has been DRASTICALLY
> reduced. Two examples here:
> 	A)  The "local activities" workshop(s) at the past two ACM
> 	"premier" conferences have either been drastically scaled back
> 	or eliminated entirely.

Actually, the "local activities" workshop at the most recent ACM conference
(CSC '92) was larger and better supported then it has been in the past. Were
you aware of the recent Big Event.

> 	B)  The Lectureship program has been turned completely upside
> 	down, and is apparently now being micro-managed by either the
> 	EC or Council as a whole.  The net result is fewer lecturers,
> 	fewer lectures and less contact with student chapters, the
> 	very folks who will be the future (if any) of ACM.

I've always found the Lectureship program a strange beast. When I was running
a student chapter, I found it too difficult to use, and we tend not to have a
need for it as a professional chapter (but LA is wierd). We often do support
the program financially even if we don't use it. The quality of the
lectureship program is often the direct result of the volunteer that runs it.
I've seen good; I've seen bad; and I don't think HQ has anything to do with
it.

> So, what can we (as members and "volunteers") do to change this?  I'm not
> sure.  

Dropping notes and having discussions with the volunteers in charge is one way
to start. You might try talking to Bill Poucher, head of the Local Activities
Board, or specific SIG chairs.

> For one thing, I can't convince my management to give me much
> release time for ACM activities, given the current level of "benefit"
> my employer sees.  

Good point. Perhaps we need to introduce TQM into ACM: We must determine
exactly who it is that ACM is trying to serve, and what that customer want out
of ACM. What benefits does your employer want that would result in support? If
we start at that question, instead of guessing, perhaps we can arrive at the
right answer.

> And, having tried to change things for a number of
> years when I DID have management support, I'm not convinced that the
> sort of change that's required is even possible.

Change is alwasy possible. It can, however, be difficult.

> Anyway, here are a couple of places to start:

> 1)  Fix CACM - I won't bother to repeat the suggestions that have already
> been circulated here.

I truly think the "art" type changes to ACM are cosmetic. Is there a problem
with the articles.

> 2)  Make some REAL (financial) cuts, and STOP trying to be all things to
> all elements of computing.  

First question: where do you cut. I run a SIG. I've got to cut the budget. Do
I eliminate conferences? our newsletter? most staff support is already
volunteer, and I don't have the authority to cut my share of HQ expenses. When
do I end up starting the spiral that leads to ruin? 

I do think expenses can be cut at HQ, and that procedures need to be tightened
there. As a SIG chair, I'm pushing to do this.

> One of the BIGGEST problems I think ACM has is that it's TOO diverse, and
> tries to do TOO many things.  Is ACM a loose organization of local chapters,
> student chapters and SIGS?  Is it a publications house?  Is it yet another
> academic society?  Is it an education provider?  Is it a seminar provider?
> Is it a mutial admiration society for the elite?

OK. What does ACM do that you think it shouldn't. Let's pick one: the PBS
series. Didn't benefit me in any way. However, it fit within ACMs legal
obligation, as a scientific and educational society, of educating the public.
OK, not that. How about pubs. Are any of the pubs not self-supporting. All of
them that are don't tax ACM. SIGs? SIGs are self-supporting and pay their own
way (I know). Student chapters? Students are our future. OK, then, what about
these stupid insurance programs? First, they are income-producing for ACM, of
of high value to the independent contractors in our industry. Local chapters?
True, these aren't self supporting, but they provide the volunteer base. The
programming contest? This gets students excited. Hmmmm, what's left.
Conferences? Self-supporting. 

> We're trying to do EVERYTHING, and doing NOTHING very well.

I don't think ACM does everything. We're not involved with certification of
professionals, for example. We're not involved with legislation or lobbying --
that's out of our charter.

> If someone comes up with some REAL reforms, and there appears to be hope
> that things will get better - count me in.  Otherwise, I'll probably
> keep paying my dues as long as CACM is occasionally useful.

I do suggest you make your opinions known to your regional rep. That's the
best way to be heard at ACM council. 

Daniel
--
[W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
[Email]:faigin@aerospace.aero.org              [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#13149
   "You can't be a rationalist in an irrational world. It isn't rational!"
	       Dr. Rance, in Joe Orton's "What the Butler Saw"