From: gnh@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Hay)
Newsgroups: uk.bcs.misc
Subject: Re: Can I be a member? No.
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:34:28 GMT
Distribution: uk
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University

In <1992Dec11.100637.8574@praxis.co.uk> mct@praxis.co.uk (Martyn Thomas) writes:

Ok first things first. I'm a 2nd year undergraduate/ grunt/ nobody etc
who speaks on behalf of no-one at Edinburgh University. Ok here goes.
This newsgroup added itself one day and I never got rid of it due to the
fun conversation that flowed within. I felt like saying something today
so bear with me and if I miss everyone's point I'm sorry.

>peter@micromuse.co.uk (Peter Galbavy) writes:

>:I have always believed that the BCS was an old boys club, and have never
>:intention of joining. Our company has about 20 professionals who *do not
>:need* the BCS. Why does anyone want to be a member ? Serious question -
>:not rhetorical...

>And this is a serious answer, from an employer.

>Software is an engineering structure. (complex, used for important purposes,
>difficult to analyse fully,etc).

>Software development is an engineering profession. (or should be - but it's
>currently immature).

Thats all fine but don't you call yourself the British Computer Society
and not Institute of Software Engineers etc.

I think there's a lot more to the "Industry" than "software engineers".
What about scientists / researchers etc. I ask. Surely an organisation
that claims to be what your title suggests can have a further outlook
on all aspects of the science/subject/industry than a lot of coders 
(all be it excellent/efficient/safe/structured ones at that)
Nailing everyone that touches a machine or language an "Engineer" isn't
very appropriate I think. Maybe the over use of that word is the problem
although I do see how it applies itself.
It doesn't really imply the creativity,imaginitivity/art(sometimes) and
Engineering that make up what this being in Computer Science seems to be.
(I may back down on the art bit but labeling people isn't clever is my point)

>Because of its immaturity and very rapid growth, most practitioners lack the
>appropriate training and education, and are not very competent (this
>may include most BCS members) (evidence: the SEI surveys using the
>capability maturity model, the Price Waterhouse DTI survey on software
>quality, the ESPRIT BOOTSTRAP survey, MoD's expressed views on its
>suppliers, the big banks' experiences with IT reported at meetings and
>conferences, the contents of comp.risks, etc).


>Software looks easy, and there are plenty of practitioners who believe that
>they can develop excellent software despite their lack of appropriate
>education and training and experience (a minority of them are right -
>including, no doubt, all the readers of this newsgroup :-). 

>Nevertheless, employers and customers need to be able to tell the engineers
>(some of whom may be useless) from the others (some of whom may be
>excellent), because overall the ability of qualified engineers will increase
>(it worked for other engineering disciplines) and because the professional
>engineering tradition provides an ethical status and a structure for
>continuing education.

>The BCS is attempting to be the professional society for software (and other
>"information systems") engineers. The profession needs them to succeed (or
>to cede the role to the IEE, and for the IEE to give sufficient attention to
>the rate of change in software engineering). Engineers need a professional
>society to administer qualifications, represent the profession, maintain
>standards, guard ethics, represent public interest ... ...

Here's a point. Do the readers of this classify themselves as "Engineers"
or "Scientists" or both?

>I believe that customers wil increasingly require that senior people leading
>software projects are CEng. The BCS provides a route (although not a smooth
>one for those without a "numerate" degree). This is already starting on
>safety-related projects. It is only a matter of time for other bespoke systems.

>I also believe that the pressure on pay for programmers is downwards
>and that the better qualified "engineers" will be paid better than their
>less qualified colleagues (lots of reasons, but just look at other
>engineering professions for comparisons).

>These changes will hurt people, and the industry will resist them. Many
>people who would be adversely affected will deny that the changes will
>occur, because the alternative is emotionally unacceptable. They may be
>right, but I do not think so (and history is against them).

>The BCS isn't perfect, but it is trying to do an important job. I encourage
>you to join it and help.
>-- 

I still haven't seen a clear definition of what the BCS is/who its for (not just
analysts /s.engineers surely?) Maybe a spokesperson can set the record straight.
Or does this all continue.
Suits me -its getting quite fun to read.

Graham Hay.
(Hello to all at E.U. who'll use this against me in near future no doubt)
-- 
 Do not meddle in the affairs of     |Graham Hay (CS2 Class Rep & general git)
 wizards for you are crunchy and     |        e-mail : gnh@dcs.ed.ac.uk,
     taste good with ketchup         |                 grahamh@castle.ed.ac.uk
 -----------Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures----------