BCS creates Truth Commission to heal wounds

ACCU is where its at.

BCS is just a management playground. If you are serious about the art of programming you join ACCU. I was a member of BCS years ago and found it to be useless and largely irrelevant.

I didn't know...

...that they now preferred to be called the Chartered Institute for IT (or whatever).

Unfortunately, I can't resist the temptation to shorten that to ChIIT (pronounced "Shee-it!" in the best tradition of Dodge-Charger-driving redneck good ol' boys everywhere). Or something like that anyway.

If you get the acronym wrong, it still makes sense

I read that as "Bowl Championship Series" and the article still seemed spot-on.

(Mine is the the one with the season tickets in it)

Too late for me...

... and two other peeps I work with. We've already left...

BCS?

Don't ask about computers or computing though.

Maybe a better answer is along lines of identified funding streams so badly let down by ineffective programme management usually by budding empire builders rather than skilled professionals.

Or maybe I dream far too much?

"attempts to modernise have met resistance "

I'm not a member but I'm wondering what "modernise" means in this context.

First, "modernise" was what Tony Blair did to the Labour Party and look where that got us all. It made him and his family disgustingly rich though so maybe that's OK; after all, wealth is the ultimate objective (the stuff about camels and needles was just a joke, wasn't it?).

Second, what do members want from "modernisation"? For example, a .sig I've seen around and enjoyed says "legacy = stuff that works". There's a certain amount of truth in that; today's young 'uns seem to think that new necessarily means improved, whereas what it often means is repeating mistakes that the more experienced folks learned from twenty years or more ago, which in other branches of engineering and technology would be considered rather foolish, but repeating other people's mistakes in IT is considered normal behaviour?

More of the Same

I have been a member of the BCS for over 40 years. I claimed the annual fee as an expense and felt there might one day be value in putting a few more letters after my name. No such luck. The BCS is largely seen as irrelevant. The people who work in a leading edge website research firm I am involved with laugh at the content of the BCS meetings I have pushed their way.

i spent many years working in California and discovered that paper qualifications mean little to most Silicon Valley firms. It helps to get in the door if you have a computer science degree, but after that you are judged almost exclusively by your track record. Those I have met here with computer science degrees and/or BCS membership at various levels find it hard to understand that their qualifications are usually worthless. Indeed e-skills (a quango partly funded by employers) has rated many British university computer science course and is unimpressed.

What to do? Is there any real need for the BCS? I feel that, on balance, there is not. Over 90% of the people working in IT in this country do not belong to it, and see no reason to belong. In the past the Society has made (pathetic) efforts to suggest that unless you were a member you might not be any good at your job. They have tried hard to introduce the concept of professionalism to an industry that needs it, but there are no effective sanctions for bad behaviour ("If you don't behave you can't call yourself MBCS" is not very frightening).

The right answer is probably to start again with a clean sheet of paper (a blank monitor?), and to keep the academics away. They often dominate the infighting that has prevented the BCS from becoming an effective force. How do I know this? I am an ex-academic. But it might be easier just to close the whole thing down.