Friday, 28 May 2010

Messages of Support for the EGM

Since the BCS issued the email to all members regarding the EGM, the following is a sample of the messages of support that have been received to date.
  • I was very pleased to find I am not alone in being severely critical of the BCS and agree with your thoughts in the CW article that the BCS is now dominated by its commercial interests and has lost touch with its members. The analogy with the AA is entirely apt. The BCS is no longer, in my opinion, a serious professional institution.
  • I will be voting for your efforts.
  • I've just read your opinion piece in Computer Weekly on the BCS, and I agree. Thank you for your work on the EGM. I'm a member and will be voting with you.
  • I am in total agreement with you. The "organization seems to have lost sight of its true aims. I think that your comparison to the AA hits the nail on the head. I have not been happy about the direction(s) being taken for some time not. I shall definitely be voting with you at the EGM.
  • Many thanks for raising that motion. I find hope in your action as, given the choice between professionalism and business, or mutual support and society, as core focus - I would prefer the latter. I'm pleased you have created the opportunity to air the point.
  • I'm a long term member and have become increasingly opposed to what the BCS has become. I would leave tomorrow but I am a C.Eng, which I do care about, and believe I have to maintain my BCS membership to keep that. I turned down the CITP 'status' because I see that as just a means to extract more money from me. It's a 'chartered nothing'. When CITP was first introduced, they removed my status as a chartered member of the society, though I believe they have now restored CEng as qualifying me to be a chartered member. But it's another example of their lack of understanding and disdain for the membership. 
  • Good luck with the EGM. You certainly have my vote.



  1. On a slightly related topic of chartered Scientist. I recently lost this due to moving from redundant to 'retired' as it was considered that anyone who isnt currently practising cant hold the designation CSci.

    However I am not bothered as the new yearly revalidation form I had to fill in appeared more interested in what management type courses I had been on even what voluntary work I did rather than what science had been done. It was only down at the bottom of the form did it give a space for publications etc. It would appear that the people responsible have lost sight of things. Its charted scientist not chartered manager/admin type. The most important thing should be the scientific work you've done and the quality of it.

    I therefore came to the conclusion that Chartered Scientist was just another money making scheme that had little value.

  2. You have my proxy vote

  3. Does the chairman proxy give the chairman the capability to introduce an extra "spoiling" measure at the end (should they lose the no confidence vote...) which he can get "voted through" using the proxies of everyone "who hasn't expressed a preference" (beacause the proxy choosers didn't know about this, so how could they have expressed a preference)?