Author: Pete Galati
Date: 12:51:10 05/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 2000 at 14:55:59, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On May 29, 2000 at 13:51:40, Don Beal wrote: > >>Some ICCA facts. >> >>The "ICCA" consists of the "Board": >>1. David Levy - president and sponsorship finder >>2. Monty Newborn - vice president >>3. Don Beal - secretary/treasurer >>4. Martin Zentner - programmers representative >> >>plus >> >>5. Jaap vd Herik - Journal editor >> >>plus >> >>Johanna Hellemons or deputy - a part-time paid assistant to typeset >>the Journal, and do some administration. >> >> >>None of the five main members is paid. We even pay our own individual >>membership subscriptions. We volunteered to help mainly because we are >>ex-chess programmers and enthusiasts who wanted to see continued >>activity in Computer Chess and raise the profile so that major >>sponsors would have an official organisation to deal with. The >>academic involvement has often been an asset - sponsors generally >>trust universities. >> >>Jaap vd Herik gets academic kudos from the scientific content of the >>Journal - he gives his own time free for that benefit. David Levy >>used to benefit commercially from being in contact with chess >>programmers - he doesn't now (as far as I know). The occasional >>ICCA Journal article brought me some academic benefit. >> >>The Journal also contains news and other information of general >>interest, which is useful to a wider community than just academics. >> >>The ICCA has successfully organised major tournaments, attracting media >>attention, over a period of 25 years. Programmers have been pleased to >>have the opportunity to enter them - the tournaments would not have >>happened without the ICCA. >> >>The Journal, like all traditional publications, costs significant >>money to produce because it adds quality to the content. Papers >>submitted are considered by referees, may be returned to authors >>with requests for changes, and will be edited and typeset in a >>consistent style to improve them. >> >>It is this selection and improvement process that costs the main money, >>not the printing and postage. People frequently say something like >>"you could publish on the web and it would be free". People buy and >>read traditional publications expecting a certain level of quality. >>If the filtering and improvement process is abandoned, the quality goes >>down. You have only to look at some of the unmoderated newsgroups to >>see the end result. Web publishing does not (yet) carry academic >>kudos, so the ICCA might become disconnected from the academic >>community if the printed Journal was abandoned. >> >>People also say "you should accept subscriptions by credit card". Well >>we'd like to, and have been intermittently checking on this. Ten years >>ago we were too small - the banks refused to allow us to operate credit >>card transactions. Five years ago, they acknowledged that perhaps our >>business would be acceptable, but their charges would have gobbled up >>about 25% of the payments. Currently credit-card bank charges would >>consume about 5% of payments. >> >>However there is some awkwardness, to do with internation transactions. >>Although credit card transactions are easily combined with currency >>conversion, the amount to be charged has to be specified in the currency >>of the receiving bank account. The bank would be in the UK (because >>that's where the treasurer is). The amount would be in pounds. So if >>you pay in dollars or european currency, the amount charged to you would >>be variable, depending on the exchange rate. So you might pay 45 dollars >>(or 39 dollars) or 83 guilders or whatever, instead of knowing the exact >>amount when you specified the transaction. It's not a big problem in >>one sense, but some people might feel uncomfortable not knowing exactly >>how much they were paying in their own currency. Despite that >>awkwardness, we now think the time is right to pay the banks for a >>credit card facility. (My most recent email to other board members >>about this was in May 3, _prior_ to the recent public messages, in case >>you think we only do things when people post public messages.) >> >>Please note that the obstacle has been bank charges, not problems with >>hi-tech flashy websites or lack thereof (and not because we "hadn't >>thought of it"). > >Ernst's post stated, essentially, the following: > >1) The ICCA is contracting. >2) Members of CCC should join the ICCA. > >I think this issue of convenience of subscription is important. In the past >people have complained about how difficult it is to subscribe ot the journal. >This even came up at the last ICCA business triennial meeting, although I >believe the person who brought it up was led to believe that it had gotten >easier to subscribe, which is true. > >All an American needs to do is send an international letter. > >I would like to offer to make it even easier by handling credit card >transactions in the US. People can pay me and I'll pay you. There are web >sites that allow you to do credit card transactions for free, as long as both >parties are located in the USA, and I'd like to volunteer to be the collection >point for US credit card subscriptions. > >Personally I think it would be fine if you raised your rates by 5 or 10% if you >could do credit card transactions from your site itself. I would vote for that >immediately. I think there would be many fewer people who are turned off by the >increase in the subscription rate than are attracted by the ease of payment, but >I admit that this is an opinion from the outside. I find a 10% increase in membership rates in exchange for accepting credit cards acceptable. Don't for get that I've given approx $45 to USCF for a years membership, and in my case, they didn't give me much of anything. So the cost of ICCA subscription would be a better deal, and they can have the money I'd send to USCF, not a problem. > >>Now some of my opinions. >> >>Like other readers of the CCC forum we choose whether to, when, and >>when not, to read CCC messages. I personally think it is not >>reasonable of CCC members to expect that any message about the ICCA >>will receive an ICCA response the same day. So complaints about >>"the ICCA should be here" I regard as mischief-making. I AM here. >>What's your grudge? > >There's CCC and there's the ICCA, and there's little connection. I think it >would help the ICCA if there is more connection. The ICCA doesn't solicit >papers here, it doesn't announce events here, it doesn't call for subscribers >here. Doing any or all of the above might help, and there is a good chance that >this might help out of proportion to the effort involved. > >If the organization is in problematic financial straits, it couldn't help but be >good for the ICCA to solicit the people who are here. If the ICCA is too busy >or has no inclination, that is a shame. > >>In general it would be better if people with time to spare could do >>something to help, rather than complain. The community could do with >>a few more Ernst Heinz's and a few less <deleted to avoid flame wars>'s. > >I admit that my own contribution to the computer chess community has been less >than it could have been, however I don't think I'm in last place. > >>Bruce, thanks for pointing out the ICCA board page didn't include >>Martin Zentner. I put that in as soon as I read your public message. >>You could have also used the email link that says "please send any >>comments about these pages to icca@dcs.qmw.ac.uk". > >You are right, I should have sent you email. > >>I don't think any of the board members has such a strong motive to do >>this voluntary work that we would continue against serious opposition. >>The occasional attack by the ill-informed, or malicious, we ignore. >>Marsland and Herik chose never to read rgcc or CCC. >>It's not a question of nerves, Frederic, but whether the time spent >>in writing messages is worth it from our point of view. The nutters >>on r.g.c.c were relentless. Replying merely brought more innuendo, >>misinformation and lies. I felt that continuing to reply would cost >>me more time and effort than I wished to spend. > >I appreciate the effort expended by ICCA board members and other volunteers past >and present. > >We've gotten rid of the "nutters" here, and if someone tries to engage you in a >pointless conversation you can evade it without much fear of being permanently >tormented. So I suggest that CCC is now a safe place for discussion. > >However, I am concerned by this implication that the boat should not be rocked >or current board members will abandon ship. I don't want to be responsible for >the timing of a board member's retirement, so if that's going to be a constant >undercurrent of any discussion, I can't discuss anything. > >bruce > >>Teerapong, thanks for your suggestion that the ICCA Journal should >>contain more "beginners start here" articles. I agree, and I'll Ok, this "beginners start here" is important. This will bring more members, because if _I_ join ICCA, 98% (I'm guessing) of what's in the journal will be over my head, so there has to be a way in for beginers, otherwise, you might as well forget about getting a significant amount of new members. Pete >>forward your message to Jaap. I believe he'd receive such articles >>favourably if anyone offered them. I once had the good intention to >>write some myself, but the task never reached the top of my do-list. >>(Rather like Bob Hyatt's book :-). >> >> >>Don Beal.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.