🚀 go-pugleaf

1) ACM and the LAB only deal with the symptoms and not the actual problems.
 The network acm.org is a great idea, but there are limitations - not everyone
 in the membership has access. I realize it is rather surprising, but not
 everyone has a pc or terminal at home, and access at work may be highly restricted.

2) Within ACM itself the Local Groups suffer from a lack of credibility. The
 local SIGs also have this problem in some instances. This is very 
surprising because local groups are the perfect delivery system for many of ACMs
 programs. A few years ago there was a long-range Strategic Plan developed
 for ACM - nowhere did it discuss the viability nor the usability of the
 local groups. Yet for many programs (publications excluded) the local groups
are the perfect method. The one problme is that most local groups are not
well-managed.

3) ACM does not market itself well. Those of us in the profession are well
aware of the benefits of ACM, yet no one outside the industry knows about it.
People have been mentioning here that  in economic crunch, IEEE and ACM dues
are the first to go, and its difficult to convince management t0o fund
conference attendance. I view this as a failing of ACM to promote itself.
The PBS series was one of the best things to happen to ACM - the general
public got a chance to see what's going on. 

At the local groups level we tend to treat ACM as a high school band candy
sale instead of the professional-level organization it truly is. Start
getting annou7ncements in the Business pages instead of the Public Service
pages, and watch the credibility improve. Managers and budget-controllers
read the business pages, not the PSAs.

4) ACM sees only students, academics and practitioners. Excuse me, but
I only practice my music instruments and my skiing. Regardless of who 
employs me, I am a professional, not a practitioner. Neither am I a
practicing physician.  Again, a poor marketing move by ACM.

(end of tirade for the day)