Title: The Proposal from Centaur Communications Ltd

I am going to devote this editorial to the proposal from Centaur Communications Ltd (CCL for short) that was announced via our mail-lists in mid-February. Please read this carefully and if you have an opinion please send it to me (in my office as Chair of ACCU) as soon as possible. While it would be possible reserve objections until the Committee's recommendation is voted on at the AGM such a delay could have serious repercussions to any future for ACCU.

Let me explain that a little further before detailing CCL's offer. As I am not in a position to continue as the unpaid editor and general dogsbody of C Vu beyond the end of this year (at the very latest) the continued publication of C Vu (the single most important deliverable from the perspective of many members) in its current form is under serious threat. Despite extensive discussion by members on a dedicated mailing list no clear way forward has been offered. Lots of discussion as to content and organisation of ACCU periodicals but nothing that attacks the fundamental problem of production.

Production of a periodical requires many skills. To start with suitable content has to be acquired. Without the efforts of a number of members that would be a serious problem. The content then has to be assembled, copy-edited and laid out for printing. Page masters have to be produced for the printers. Currently all these tasks are undertaken in house by the editors of C Vu, Overload and CAUGers. Most of these jobs are not ones for which any of us have any training. I know that the editor of Overload would feel much happier if he could just deliver technically checked content to someone else for completion.

At the moment we pay commercial organisations for printing (Parchments) and distribution (Able Types). We also pay Southfield Microcomputer Support Services (my trading name) for duplication and distribution of the C Vu disk. In other words we are quite reasonably employing specialists for several tasks.

In the conference area we have, by informal agreement, been the principle sponsors and content providers for 'The C/C++ European Developers' Forum' which is run by Parkway Gordon/Research. In exchange for this sponsorship and help they offered our members a substantial discount. One minor irritant I have had with the conference title (which, like the title of this publication, I did not choose) is that it lacks any ACCU branding. Perhaps that is a reason why it has not generated the flood of new members that I would have hoped for. As Parkway Gordon/Research were taking the commercial risks they also took any and all profit. In other words, the event was theirs even though we provided maximum support. Of course, realistically, without our sponsorship they had a dead event.

Another factor that you need to be aware of is that ACCU is legally an unincorporated organisation. That means that the Officers, Committee and general membership are legally responsible for such things as tax and adherence to employment laws. This means that we have to be very careful. If ACCU employs someone there are legal implications which sane people would want to avoid. That would be a good reason for paying printers to print our publications rather than setting up a print-shop and employing someone to run it on a part time basis.

Enough background.

Just before Christmas James Bennett (a CCL manager whose job title is 'Publisher' and who is responsible for several publications including EXE Magazine) approached me to discuss ways that CCL might help ACCU now that I was stepping down as editor. They recognised, as could anyone, that finding a replacement with even my range of mediocre publishing skills was unlikely. They also felt strongly that given ACCU expertise and my contacts they could produce a better-organised conference event and pay the major speakers appearance fees. They made it clear that they did not want to change the content of any of our publications nor to change the technical content and pricing philosophy of conferences sponsored by us. However they did want to improve the presentation of our periodicals and run conferences that were strongly branded as ACCU ones. Even at this preliminary stage they were clearly stating that they did not want to take over our publishing activities

My first reaction was to raise the issue of our current suppliers and commercial partners. As we had already decided to discontinue the C Vu disk as of the end of the current volume of C Vu, that was not an issue (anyway, I do not make a profit from that). Our printers and distributors welcome our business but they do not rely on it. That left Parkway Gordon/Research, which is a small family business, run by a husband and wife and a couple of employees. I insisted that any offer must include consideration for them because of the work they had invested in the Developers' Forum which event would not be viable without continued ACCU support (please remember that neither ACCU nor I have ever received any payment for the work and support we provided, nor have we ever entered any agreement to provide that support.)

After several weeks of discussion and mutual exchange of information CCL presented a proposal to your Committee which can be summarised as follows:

Please note that none of these proposals take control away from ACCU. Indeed the CCL proposals have been deliberately drafted to leave control in our hands. We will retain control of content and copyright for material in our publications. We will be major partners in developing conferences. I am confident (remember that I have written a column in EXE Magazine for eight years) that those involved on the CCL side take very similar views for commercial reasons to those we hold for idealistic ones. They could have offered to publish C Vu/Overload for £3000 per combined issue and have paid a part-time production editor to do the work, but that would have made the last line decision on content theirs rather than ours. The publication proposal is also drafted so they are delivering a product (distributed publications) for ACCU. Of course we would be happy for them to use extra issues to promote ACCU but they will not have a right to sell our publications for their commercial gain.

There is a long-term advantage to contributors to our publications in that, as they reach maturity as technical writers, they will be noticed by the editor of EXE Magazine and may, from time to time, get paid commissions (you don't get rich that way but every little bit helps)

I hope that I have not distorted anything in the above. Please write, phone or email me if you have any doubts (or better still complete and post the insert in this issue). The preferred mechanism is through the accu-changes@accu.org mailing list as this allows other interested members to learn of your opinions. As always, if you hold strong opinions you should make every effort to attend the AGM (April 17) and put them before your fellow members in debate on the Committee motion you will find elsewhere in this issue. If you cannot attend the AGM you can provide a written statement. We do not have a mechanism for absentee voting but I know that your fellow members will ensure that your opinions are not ignored.

I am sure your Committee will very much welcome positive endorsement of their actions if you think that appropriate. It would be unfortunate to learn only of the negative opinions.

For your convenience you will find a coloured insert in this issue of C Vu which you can complete and return to me. It would be helpful if as many members as possible could take the time (and the cost of a stamp) to respond. This is not a strict postal vote (we do not have such a mechanism) but it is advisory to your Committee so they can proceed in confidence that the membership approves.

Finally, may I again emphasise that this is not a change of direction for ACCU. It requires no constitutional changes. It is simply a logical step forward and one that has only been made possible because of the high regard that ACCU has earned in the commercial world. No sane commercial organisation would want to destroy the very thing that they find valuable. What I find particularly exciting is that developing conferences in partnership will allow us to make a real difference to the Software Engineering/Developers conference world. If we get it right (and I believe we will) we will set standards for others to aspire to.