Title: A Final Personal View

Mostly when I write this column I am concerned with being an irritant about something that I think matters. Over the years I have voiced concerns over a wide range of issues with remarkably little response from the membership. This is my last PV column because I have become tired of dropping stones down wells in the hope of hearing an echo. It seems a fitting place to stop in view of the Editor's not seeking re-election at the coming AGM. If you remember (if you have been a member long enough) this column was started by Francis and I only took it over because he felt that he was too compromised by being an Officer of ACCU (or CUG(UK) as it was then) to write the kind of critical material he felt was needed from time to time. The Chair of ACCU has to be far more considered in his writing than us poor ordinary members.

I have serious reservations as to how well ACCU publications will prosper without Francis at the helm. He not only edits C Vu but contributes material to both C Vu and Overload on a regular basis. If memory serves me correctly he has written at least one technical article for every issue of Overload and for every issue of C Vu since Volume 2 no 1. His reading load for book reviews alone would daunt most people.

[I am publishing the rest of this under protest. I have always guaranteed George the right to write what he thinks is desirable and I have always promised that material critical of me will never be censored. George insists I publish.]

Many of you already know of the proposal from Centaur Communications Ltd (owners and publishers of EXE Magazine) to provide publication support for ACCU periodicals and to work in an (informal?) commercial partnership with ACCU to continue to provide regular conferences that should be high in quality while being (by the standards of the IT industry) low in cost. I guess Francis will provide details elsewhere. What I am going to tell you here is something that Francis would not tell you himself.

When CCL first approached Francis to discuss possible support they offered several things. One of these was the possibility of a substantial consultancy fee for organising conference programs because they recognised that it was the substantial network of contacts that Francis had built up that assured the quality of speakers that we get. He turned that idea down flat. He refused to be paid for 'luring his friends' into speaking at ACCU events. The second offer to cover his costs as a delegate to C, C++ and Java standards meetings was somewhat different. Francis has recently lost his commercial sponsor to C++ standards meetings and has never had one for the others (which has meant that his attendance at these has been intermittent). Accepting this offer would ensure that the UK had wider representation at international meetings and Francis would get to work with more experts - something he claims to enjoy.

Right from the start Francis insisted that the interests of Parkway Gordon should be considered. He knew this would be the most awkward part of any deal. What none of you will knew until now is that Francis had other business negotiations with Parkway Gordon whose positive outcome was quite important as they would replace income that was lost by the effective demise of C++ training by Richfords Training (under its new owners). He knew that any deal that included ACCU conferences would not make life easier. I doubt that CCL would have been interested in our conference events without Francis' involvement and PG would hardly be able to continue their conference without ACCU sponsorship.

Francis probably hoped for the best (perhaps thinking that those who had worked with him for several years could separate his work for ACCU from his income generating work for himself). He carefully directed everyone's attention to the proposed standard's sponsorship as disqualifying him from direct involvement with the Committee decision as to whether to recommend the proposal to the membership. Of course the offer was far too good to ignore and seems to provide future stability for ACCU for a number of years. Of course the ACCU Committee will have to vet things carefully and ensure that the principles of ACCU are preserved. I do not think that I can reveal financial details (no, you cannot. Francis) but Parkway Gordon are being made an offer of consultancy fees to recompense them for the loss of the September conferences. None-the-less they pulled the plug on all dealings with not only ACCU but also with Francis as an individual. I find the latter unfortunate to say the least.

Finally I would like to thank them for the work they have done over the last few years providing assistance to ACCU. It is not their fault that ACCU needs (or at least will benefit) from a single commercial partner to support them in both periodical publication and conference organisation.