🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 93Jan4140331@csthor.aber.ac.uk, aro@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Ormsby) writes:
>
>> If the BCS is just going to be for engineers, it should rename itself the
>> Institute of Information Systems Engineers or something and make it explicit.
>> If it's going to be for everyone in computing, as the current name implies,
>> it should value us all equally.
>
>On almost every bit of paperwork I receive from the BCS, there is a
>subtitle which reads "The Society of Information Systems Engineering"
>(note: not "Information Engineering" as Lindsay Marshall seems to have
>been saying) so I suppose they have come close to making it explicit.

The Royal Charter clearly states that the remit of the Society extends
beyond engineers. I don't have a quotation from the Charter to hand,
but a pie chart which appeared in some of the membership brochures
suggests that the professional membership encompasses all areas of the
profession. The percentages cited in `Introducing the British Computer
Society' (ref: ZA10/SM/10/89) may be a little out of date now, but give
an indication of the breadth of membership:

25% systems analysts and programmer
21% DP management
21% general management
13% academic
 8% consultants
 7% operations
 4% engineers
 1% other

If the student membership is taken into account, the proportion of
academic members becomes larger and it is empirically true that they
are well represented among the active membership of the Society. Note
that the definition of `engineer' used to obtain these figures may differ
from the one implied by recent articles posted to this newsgroup. If
anyone has figures keyed to the BCS Industry Structure Model, they
would give a more accurate picture.

Pete.