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.