Re: The BAA and new BCS membership requirements

Paul invites 'position papers'. I'm not convinced the following is the
BAA's best course, but it is the most radical course I can support. I
offer it as a kick-start to our discussion.

ANALYSIS

1. For some time now, the BAA has carried out its mission of promoting
APL almost entirely by publishing Vector.

2. The BAA is constituted as a learned society, with members, a
committee of elected officers and articles of association. But
elections are uncontested and everyone who wishes to serve does so.

3. Our formal proceedings are no more than formalities. The BAA's
activities could be carried out equally well by the same few activists
acting informally.

4. BCS claims the money BAA has long regarded as its own.

5. While BCS is willing in principle to fund BAA's activities, very
few BAA members will join BCS as full or affiliate members. If BCS
would permit such a reduced BAA to continue as a Specialist Group,
there will still not be enough members to justify BCS funding much
activity.

6. BCS might permit such a reduced BAA to continue to produce Vector,
in which case BCS will manage subscriptions to BCS members. BCS might
also permit BAA itself to manage subscriptions to non-BCS members, but
this permission is not certain and, even if granted, should be
regarded as subject to change.

7. BAA does not lack funds to publish Vector. Subscribers pay the cost
of their printed copies. We also have corporate supporters.

8. BAA's few activists could contest the BCS's claim to "our funds",
but such a contest would absorb a substantial part of their limited
energies.


PROPOSED

A. Grant one person permission to publish the title Vector under its
current ISSN.

B. Wind up the BAA.

C. Trust the activists to continue to produce Vector, publishing 1-2
articles a month online, and printing and distributing issues every
three months as formerly, or perhaps every six months.

Stephen Taylor
editor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]