There was some discussion on today's policy call about the issue I 
raised recently of "who should file SOIs".

It was evident that the participants hadn't read (or remembered) the 
note I posted previously.  See 
https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1305&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&F=&S=&P=29868. 
This note contains a short summary:

My position is 'every member should file a SOI'.  And the rationale is 
that if you endorse a position - or even if you're counted as 'one of 
the xxx NCSG members' and don't file a minority opinion, you are 
influencing policy.  Further, creating any distinction between those 
members who must file and those who need not will result is unproductive 
discussion and enforcement overhead/inconsistencies. And one of the 
group's core values is 'transparency'.

As to the obvious concern - does this requirement create a barrier to 
participation?:

I say "No" - the membership questionnaire that we all fill out, and 
confirm annually - is a subset of the SOI.  So we should expand the 
membership questionnaire & automate filing the relevant questions and 
answers as a SOI.  Currently, it is painful to get a wiki account and 
fill out the form.  But if that's automated away, it should be painless.

As for enforcement, I suggest that the mailing list refer any post from 
someone who hasn't filed an SOI to the list moderators. mailman can do 
this, and have a canned 'SOI isn't up-to-date' answer that works 90%+ of 
the time.  And it allows moderated exceptions (e.g. third-party meeting 
notices.)  Other types of participation are in the full note.

I encourage people to read the full note, which has additional detail 
and analysis.  And then post your thoughts.

I also hope that the policy and exec committees will take action on 
this.  My previous posting contains my recommendation - but if it's not 
acceptable to the membership, then at least they need to tackle the task 
of clarifying who must file an SOI and how to enforce it. (I found that 
the harder I looked, the closer I came to 'everyone is the simplest'.  
But I'm open to other thoughts.)

Timothe Litt
ACM Distinguished Engineer
--------------------------
This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views,
if any, on the matters discussed.