Re: The BAA and new BCS membership requirements

crishog <google@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:a64ffceb-bbde-4f91-afb5-
91887d474e84@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [... deleted ...]
> 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,[... deleted ...]

I can only speak for my knowledge of how things were nearly twenty years 
ago.

It's not just the money "from" the conference, it's also the money "for" 
the conference.

At that time - while we were a BCS Specialist Group, we had our own bank 
account and whatever money we raised was for us to do with as we wished 
(obviously so long as it was spent in ways that were in the interests of 
the BAA and not detrimental to the BCS).  There were certain rules 
consequent on being a BCS Specialist Group (we had to use an "official" 
bank, and some committee members had to be members of the BCS) - but it
was 
all fairly benign and really there to make sure nobody scarpered with the 
Specialist Group funds.

Things may have changed - I can't speak about the current BCS/BAA 
relationship.