I hadn’t been aware that HQ had been treating branch membership like this for quite so long – I did hear a lot during Bill Milne’s time as branch chair. Removal of branch gold accounts was particularly badly handled – however necessary it was.

One of my roles in my day job is to deliver a course on Professional Issues in Computing. A large part of this course is devoted to consideration of professional societies and I have always used the BCS as an example of the sort of professional body that Dr Baker describes i.e. one that “that promotes excellence, recognises those that have achieved it, and admonishes those that fail to behave appropriately”. In recent times, it is hard to divert the attention of the students from the commercial overtones of the website and to encourage them to find the ethical guiding principles of the society. I hope that is not because these principle only exist in my fond memories.

Commercial managerialism is submerging professionalism within our society.

I have every confidence in our membership. I have no confidence in the current leadership.

Much has changed in that time, both in the world and in the BCS.

The world is becoming inundated with people who want to control and regulate others. In the BCS the focus on this control and the matters outlined in this debate dilutes the original purpose.

The BCS should not be a regulatory business providing a platform for zealots to build control empires and provide employment for their chronies or become a commercial business. It is supposed to be a professional body that promotes excellence, recognises those that have achieved it, and admonishes those that fail to behave appropriately. Period.

Over the past 40 years I have also been MSTA and C.Maths. Those bodies have kept their focus and their membership is not riven by aspirations beyond purpose.

I totally endorse the dissent shown by the motion of no confidence.

http://facebook.com/openwonderland

Nicole.

I’m (still) not sure why SL in particular causes such a negative reaction in some people, especially people who don’t use it (though the media are a different kettle of fish). Mark Childs has some interesting theories on the psychology. I just find it odd, in a detached way, that normally rationale, highly intelligent, academics, sometimes get very upset about this and lose all sense of proportion.

I’m writing a section about this in the “final” (as funded by Eduserv, though it’ll be continuing) report for Virtual World Watch at the moment. Happy to discuss, online or off, theories on why SL in particular causes such strong emotions.

Virtual World Watch
http://www.virtualworldwatch.net

1. Good point Stephen… I’m really not sure if I have a good answer, but to date the time demands on the journal have not been particularly onerous.

I regularly review papers for a wide range of journal and conferences – many of which are not open.
I’m also a member of a number of professional societies such as the ACM which publish a mixture of open and closed publications. I also pay extra for personal access to their digital library (as my institution has not subscribed).

So I live for now in two camps – I spend a lot of my time working on an open source project, I use a lot of open source tools, I spend some amount of time posting stuff openly (including editing and publishing CC conference proceedings – but no journals yet), and also some time submitting to, and reviewing for, commercial journals and closed conferences. I even pay out of my own pocket just to be able to read some of that closed content.

2. Leigh, I think you are conflating two thinks – PLEs and Open Access, though many proponents of PLEs are also leading movers in the Open Access movement (such as Stephen). Though I’m sorry if my participation in this journal’s publication (and my mentioning of it here) has the result that people think I’m a hypocritical waste-of-space. If it was the Intl. Journal of Open Learning Environments (or similar) I’d have to agree with you. But (from my understanding) a PLE can include many components that are not open. Though I see myself as more experienced in the ‘Virtual and’ side of the journal
Finally, from looking at the list of names on the review board I see a few more well known than I for their support of open education.

1.+2. As I said, I’m caught off guard with these comments. I don’t want you to think I’m being glib with my answers. Your comments have given me food for thought, and something to consider – specifically to what extent I continue to support (and in what manner) closed access publications. I think it is possible to be involved in both worlds, but how best to balance this work is open to question.

3. Graham. Sorry, it is International. I’ve amended the blog title now to suit. Sorry for the confusion caused.