FASE-TALK mail archive

FASE-TALK Mail Archive

Major Threads:

ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc
Computer Science vs. Software Engineering
IEEE-CS Certified Software Engineering Professional (CSEP) Program
ACM Ubiquity Essay on Software Engineering

Hello! Don Bagert, 23 September 1997
   Re: Hello! Joe Kasser, 24 September 1997
SE Accreditation Joe Clifton, 15 October 1997
   Re: SE Accreditation Don Bagert, 16 October 1997
FASE Topic for November Don Bagert, 30 October 1997
January FASE Topic - your input needed! Don Bagert, 10 January 1998
Conference paper survey questionnaire Joe Kasser, 11 February 1998
Breaking SEE&T news Don Bagert, 18 February 1198
Texas licensing of software engineers Don Bagert, 24 February 1998
Software education across the computing field Don Bagert, 6 March 1998
PhD programs in software engineering Don Bagert, 8 April 1998
FASE topic: your input neededDon Bagert, 10 May 1998
FASE breaking news: Texas Board recognizes SE officially Don Bagert, 17 June 1998
Reviewers for software engineering book Eric Braude, 25 June 1998
   RE: Reviewers for software engineering book Jurgen Borstler, 29 June 1998
Reminder: FASE Issue on Education and Licensing Don Bagert, 28 June 1998
Texas Board - application date correction Don Bagert, 30 June 1998
Company-based certificationDon Bagert, 14 February 1999
   Company-based certificates Mike McCracken, 15 February 1999
   Company-based certificates Laurie Werth, 15 February 1999
Growth of Software Engineering Education 15 March 1999
[Q:] Journal(s) on Software Engineering Education Jurgen Borstler, 29 July 1999
teaching software processTom Horton, 15 November 1999
    Re: teaching software process Gastón Mousqués, 16 November 1999
    Re: teaching software process David Alex Lamb 24 November 1999

ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc

ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Don Bagert 15 July 2000
   Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Paul E. MacNeil 18 July 2000
   Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Chris Starr 18 July 2000
   Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Robert Seletsky 18 July 2000
   Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Steve Merrick 19 July 2000
   Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Kari.Hoijarvi 19 July 2000
   Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Anthony J. Duben19 July 2000
   Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Dennis K. Peters 19 July 2000
   Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Norm Gibbs 19 July 2000
   Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Tim Lethbridge 19 July 2000
   Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Steve Merrick 19 July 2000
   Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc Tim Lethbridge19 July 2000
   Re: FASE Talk Discussion of ACM/SWEcc Dennis Frailey 28 August 2000
End of Thread on ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc

Achieving a World-Wide Software Engineering Profession Helen Edwards 20 September 2000
SIGCSE Doctoral Consortium Vicki Almstrum 11 November 2000
Re: FASE Volume 10 Number 11 November 2000 Cem Kaner 17 November 2000

ACM Ubiquity Essay on Software Engineering

Essay on SW Engineering Vicki L. Almstrum 23 October 2001
   Re: Essay on SW Engineering Paul E. MacNeil 23 October 2001
   Re: Essay on SW Engineering Laurie Werth 23 October 2001
   Re: Essay on SW Engineering Dennis J. Frailey 23 October 2001
   Re: Essay on SW Engineering David W. Hensley 24 October 2001
   Re: Essay on SW Engineering Paul E. MacNeil 24 October 2001
   Re: Essay on SW Engineering Brent Capps 24 October 2001
   Re: Essay on SW Engineering David Luginbuhl 24 October 2001
   Re: Essay on SW Engineering Mike McCracken 24 October 2001
   SE Practice and SE Education Paul E. MacNeil 24 October 2001
   Re: Essay on SW Engineering Steve Tockey 24 October 2001
   Re: Essay on SW EngineeringDennis J. Frailey 25 October 2001
End of Thread on ACM Ubiquity Essay on Software Engineering

Subject: Hello!
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 23:41:04 -0500
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>

There are currently 18 subscribers to fase-talk, which will hopefully
grow over time.

I will start with a very generic question: what do you think should be
the direction of FASE? Do you think that the addition of a monthly
discussion topic is useful? What else should we add/delete?

I look forward to hearing your comments on this and other issues.

Thanks,

Don Bagert
FASE co-editor

Subject: Re: Hello!
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 09:50:17 -0500
From: Joseph Kasser <jkasser@UCSFS1.UMUC.EDU>
Reply-To: FASE-TALK <FASE-TALK@CPM211-1.CS.TTU.EDU>
Organization: UMUC
To: FASE-TALK@CPM211-1.CS.TTU.EDU

Let me suggest a topic. I'm updating a sylabus for a graduate class
on software maintennance.

I'm looking into adding cmm, iso 12207, 9000-3, problems with and
solutions to transitioning existing systems, year 2000 etc. There
does not seem to be a suitable text book for the class.

I'm interested in discussing the topics others think should be
covered in the class, and any suitable published material on same.

Joe

> There are currently 18 subscribers to fase-talk, which will
hopefully
> grow over time.
>
> I will start with a very generic question: what do you think should be
> the direction of FASE? Do you think that the addition of a monthly
> discussion topic is useful? What else should we add/delete?
>
> I look forward to hearing your comments on this and other issues.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Don Bagert
> FASE co-editor
>
======================================================
Joe Kasser                                    Organizational Engineering
University of Maryland University College           The Excellence! Paradigm
Reply to:                                   The key to the 21 century
jkasser@polaris.umuc.edu
office phone 301 985 4616
======================================================

Subject: SE Accreditation
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:02:37 -0500
From: clifton <clifton@AM.UWPLATT.EDU>
Reply-To: Title of sample LISTSERV list <FASE-TALK@CPM211-1.CS.TTU.EDU>
To: FASE-TALK@CPM211-1.CS.TTU.EDU

I know that IEEE is working on the accreditation
details for Software Engineering programs.

I heard a rumor that it could be out as early as next year.

Is anyone on this list on that IEEE committee?
Has anyone heard any leaks of what they will come up with?

-Joe Clifton
University of Wisconsin - Platteville

Subject: Re: SE Accreditation
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:14:17 -0500
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>

Check out FASE, Volume 7 Number 01 (August 15, 1997) - available at the
FASE web page (http://www.cs.ttu.edu) for a report concerning an article
on the subject. This is pretty much all I know at this time.

Don Bagert
bagert@ttu.edu

clifton wrote:

> I know that IEEE is working on the accreditation
> details for Software Engineering programs.
>
> I heard a rumor that it could be out as early as next year.
>
> Is anyone on this list on that IEEE committee?
> Has anyone heard any leaks of what they will come up with?
>
> -Joe Clifton
> University of Wisconsin - Platteville

Subject: FASE topic for November
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:13:35 -0600
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>

The topic for the November issue of FASE will be graduate school
opportunities. I invite each of you on the fase-talk listserv to
respond to the following question:

"What advice would you give to a prospective graduate student who wishes
to specialize in software engineering?"

The intention here is supply some information and ideas which can be
passed on to the students and co-workers of FASE subscribers. There is
a lot of leeway intentionally given here, and several open questions.
(For instance, is the prospective student interested in a Master's
thesis, a Master's non-thesis, or a PhD? Does the prospective student
need any work experience? need a CS undergraduate degree? Should it be
a software engineering degree program, or can it just be a CS program
with an SE track?)

Your response can be in any length from a paragraph to a couple of
pages, depending how much time you have, and whatever you feel is
appropriate.

Please send any contributions to the listserv
(fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu) or to me (bagert@ttu.edu) by November
13.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your time and
attention.

Don Bagert
FASE Academic Editor
bagert@ttu.edu
http://www.cs.ttu.edu/fase

Subject: January FASE topic - your input needed!
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:01:36 -0600
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: edwork@sei.cmu.edu, fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>

(My apologies in advance if you get a duplicate posting.)

I just wanted to remind you about the January FASE topic (reprinted
below). If you can get your answers to me by Wednesday the 14th, I
would appreciate it, since I will be out of town most of the 15th
because of another meeting involving the Texas State Board (which will
be a "late bulletin" for the January issue); therefore, I will have to
get most of the issue ready before I leave.

Thanks,

Don Bagert
FASE co-editor
bagert@ttu.edu
________________

Next Month's Topic: Predictions for SEE&T in 1998 - YOUR INPUT
REQUESTED!!!

The previously-announced topic of Distance Education for the January
1998 issue has
been indefinitely postponed. In its place, the subject will be
"Predictions for
1998", and consist of two questions for you:

1. What do you forsee for the software engineering education and
training fields in 1998?

2. What are your "New Year's Resolutions" for your personal
   involvement for software engineering education and training for
   1998? (Or, to put it in another way for those cultures that don't
   have the tradition of New Year's resolutions, "What would you like
   to do in software engineering education and training in 1998 that
   you were not able to this past year?"

We really want to hear from you on this!! Send your answers to Don
Bagert
(bagert@ttu.edu). Thanks!

Subject: Conference paper survey questionaire
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:53:54 -0500
From: Joseph Kasser <jkasser@UCSFS1.UMUC.EDU>
Reply-To: FASE-TALK <FASE-TALK@CPM211-1.CS.TTU.EDU>
Organization: UMUC
To: FASE-TALK@CPM211-1.CS.TTU.EDU

Dear colleague

This is to request a moment of your time to assist in providing data
for a conference paper. The paper analyzes some reasons why projects
fail (cancelled, or go over buget and schedule). Would you please show
if you agree or disagree with the following reasons for project
failure? Just write an "A" or a "D" in the appropriate column below
agree/disagree. If you have no opinion on the reason, please leave it
blank.

I will send all respondents a copy of the final paper. The paper will
be send to the E-mail address originating your response

Agree/Disagree Reason

   Poor requirements
   Failure to use experienced people
   Failure to use Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)
   Lack of process and Standards
   Lack of, or, poor plans
   Failure to validate original specification and requirements
   Lack of Configuration Management
   Low morale
   Management does not understand SDLC
   Management that does not understand technical issues
   No single person accountable/responsible for project
   Client and development staff fail to attend scheduled meetings
   Coding from high level requirements without design
   Documentation is not produced
   Failure to collect performance and process metrics and report them
      to management
   Failure to communicate with the customer
   Failure to consider existing relationships when replacing systems
   Failure to reuse code
   Failure to stress test the software
   Failure to use problem language
   High staff turnover
   Key activities are discontinued
   Lack of Requirements Traceability Matrix
   Lack of clearly defined organizational (responsibility and
      accountability) structure
   Lack of management support
   Lack of priorities
   Lack of understanding that demo software is only good for demos
   Management expects a CASE Tool to be a silver bullet
   Political considerations outweigh technical factors
   Resources are not allocated well
The Quality Assurance Team is not responsible for the quality of
       the software
There are too many people working   on the project
Unrealistic deadlines - hence schedule slips
Hostility between developer and IV&V
Other (please write in here)

Now please tell me about yourself

management __ years of experience ____
non-management __ years of experience ___

Background
systems engineering __
software engineering __
hardware engineering __

Please identify up to seven items in the list which you feel are the
most important and list them in in order of priority. Note 1 is the
item with highest priority, 7 is the item with the lowest priority.

Please list them below, or write the number next to the
appropriate item in the above list

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Thankyou for your time

Joe Kasser

PS. If you know of any distribution lists on the topics of software
engineering, systems engineering and project management, please
forward this survey questionaire appropriately.

Subject: breaking SEE&T news
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 00:11:19 -0600
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>

I thought that I would occassionally place "breaking news" in software
engineering education and training here in FASE-TALK occassionally, if
that's ok with everyone. For instance, the Texas State Board of
Professional Engineers will be meeting on software engineering tomorrow
(Wednesday), and *big news* may be coming from it. I hate to wait
until March 15, when FASE is next published...

Don

Subject:Texas licensing of software engineers
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:43:06 -0600
From: Don Bagert <bagert@hub.ofthe.net>
Reply-To: bagert@ttu.edu
To: SIGCSE.MEMBERS@acm.org, fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>, edwork@sei.cmu.edu

[My apologies in advance for duplicate postings.]

This message recently arrived from Dave Dorchester, chair of the
Licensing Committee of the Texas State Board of Professional Engineers,
concerning their meeting of 18 February 1998. (The Board is empowered
by the State of Texas to regulate the licensing of professional
engineers within its boundaries.)

"At today's State Board meeting the Board unanimously voted to approve
the following statement: 'The Board officially recognizes the
discipline of Software Engineering as having a sufficicently distinct knowledge
base to allow licensing for engineers experienced in that knowledge base.
Further the Board will move forward with the development of rules to
implement this intent, and support all state and national efforts to
develop accredited educational programs and professional examinations.'

"Under state rules this is now a proposal that will be published in the
Texas Register for public comment and at the June meeting can be voted
on for final approval."

What this means is that unless something very unusual happens between
now and June, Texas will become the first state in the U.S. to
officially recognize software engineering as a professional engineering
discipline, and the first to license professional engineers in the
area of software engineering.

Articles concerning previous meetings of Texas State Board committees
that addressed the issue of software engineering can be found in the
December 1997 and January 1998 issues of the FASE electronic newsletter
(http://www.cs.ttu.edu/fase); an update will be filed in the March
issue.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Don Bagert
Associate Professor of Computer Science
Texas Tech University
bagert@ttu.edu

Subject: software education across the computing field
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 08:12:03 -0600
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>

I want to invite you to make a submission for the FASE March issue,
whose topic is "software education across the computing field".

You might want to look at
http://www.cs.ttu.edu/dept/people/faculty_staff/bagert/se2000.htm for
an idea of the general concept of "software education" (at least, as
far as how I define it). A contribution can be of pretty much any
length, but I would suggest anywhere from a paragraph to a couple of
pages.

Please make any submissions in ASCII format, with 70 characters maximum
per line. Submissions are due by March 13.

I hope that you'll be able to contribute.

Don Bagert
FASE co-editor

Subject: PhD programs in software engineering
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 13:33:57 -0500
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>

There are currently no PhD programs in software engineering anywhere in
the world. However, in the United States many states (such as Texas)
have laws that specify that only licensed professional engineers (PEs),
or "engineers-in-training", can teach in accredited engineering
programs. In states that require their engineering professors to be
PEs, there is often an "academic" method available for obtaining PE
status. For instance, in Texas, if a person gets a PhD in an
engineering discipline at an institution which has an accredited
Bachelor's or Master's degree program, they can teach as a faculty
member in an accredited engineering program. For the first six years,
they are considered more-or-less as an "engineer-in-training", and then
after that, are eligible to become a licensed professional engineer.

Since software engineering programs in the U.S. will start to be
accredited soon (most of them initially at the Master's level),
licensed PEs will be needed to teach in those programs in many states.
Now, I assume that there will probably be some type of "grace period"
by which faculty will not need to be PEs to teach in a software
engineering degree program, but that period won't be forever. Which
means that we need to have PhD programs in software enginering, or have
faculty with PhD in other engineering disciplines doing all of the
teaching of software engineering.

Here's where the problem comes in: at in least in Texas, and I expect
in other states, there is an increasing emphasis on undergraduate
education, and it's becoming harder and harder to get new PhD programs
approved. So the spread of PhD programs in software engineering will
likely not be nearly as fast as those in CS in the 1960's and 1970's.
Which means that something has to give.

I like to hear your opinions on what you think might happen, and what
should ideally happen as far as PhD programs in software engineering
are concerned. (I realize that one possible answer is "we shouldn't
have them" =)

Thanks in advance for your input.

Don Bagert
Associate Professor of Computer Science
Texas Tech University
bagert@ttu.edu

Subject: FASE topic: your input needed
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 19:41:29 -0500
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>

The May 1998 issue of FASE will be its 100th. The topic for that issue
is titled "FASE: Past and Future". Besides looking at some of the
highlights of the first 100 issues of FASE, this article will look at
the possibilities and predictions for the future. Also, the past and
potential futures of publication in the software engineering
education and training field will also be examined.

I would like to hear from you on these subjects. In particular, I'd
like for you to address any or all of the following questions:

1. What are your thoughts and memories (good and bad) about FASE as it
reaches issue 100?

2. What's your opinion about the past and current state of software
engineering education and training publication? (e.g. journals,
proceedings, newsletters, special issues, books, technical reports)

3. What do you see FASE evolving into over the next several years?

4. What's your opinion on the future of software engineering education
and training publication?

Please send your reminisces, historical facts, predictions, and
opinions to me at bagert@ttu.edu by May 14. Thanks!

Subject: FASE breaking news: Texas Board recognizes SE officially
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:31:13 -0500
From: Don Bagert <bagert@hub.ofthe.net>
Reply-To: bagert@ttu.edu
To: fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>

[My apologies in advance for duplicate postings.]

This is a update of an email sent out to several sources on the
Internet, following a vote by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers
on 18 February 1998, which stated the Board's intention to recognize
software engineering as a legitimate engineering discipline, and to
license professional engineers in that area. A complete position
statement from the Texas Board can be found at
http://www.main.org/peboard/softweng.htm. As expected, on June 17 the
Texas Board gave unanimous approval to all proposals found in this
statement. In 20 days, the Texas Board will be able to begin licensing
software engineers, although initially this will be only through a
waiver process, until examinations are in place (probably in one year).

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Don Bagert
Associate Professor of Computer Science
Texas Tech University
bagert@ttu.edu

Subject: Reviewers for software engineering book
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 14:10:35 -0500
From: Eric Braude <ebraude@UISM.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: FASE-TALK <FASE-TALK@CPM211-1.CS.TTU.EDU>
To: FASE-TALK@CPM211-1.CS.TTU.EDU

     I am writing a textbook tentatively titled "Software Engineering: an
     Object-Oriented Perspective", to be published by Wiley next year. We
     would appreciate reviews from the community. Please contact me if you
     are interested, and I will put you in touch with my editor, Regina
     Brooks, or contact her directly at rbrooks@wiley.com

In any case, I'd appreciate very much any thoughts members may have on
what such a textbook should be like.

-- Eric Braude
Boston University

Subject: Re: Reviewers for software engineering book
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 09:21:20 +0200
From: Jurgen Borstler <jubo@CS.UMU.SE>
Reply-To: FASE-TALK <FASE-TALK@CPM211-1.CS.TTU.EDU>
To: FASE-TALK@CPM211-1.CS.TTU.EDU

Interesting. Is contents of the book already fixed? I teach Software
Engineering (traditional and OO) mainly using a project based
approach. We are still looking for a single textbook fitting our OO
course (please check http://www.cs.umu.se/tdb/kurser/TDBC18/ for some
information on the OO course).

Best Regards,
              jubo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jürgen Börstler                             phone: +46 (90) 786-6735
Department of Computing Science                   fax: +46 (90) 786-6126
Umeå University                                   e-mail: jubo@cs.umu.se
SE-901 87 Umeå, SWEDEN                 URL: http://www.cs.umu.se/~jubo/

Eric Braude writes:
>      I am writing a textbook tentatively titled "Software Engineering: an
>      Object-Oriented Perspective", to be published by Wiley next year. We
>      would appreciate reviews from the community. Please contact me if you
>      are interested, and I will put you in touch with my editor, Regina
>      Brooks, or contact her directly at rbrooks@wiley.com
>
>      In any case, I'd appreciate very much any thoughts members may have on
>      what such a textbook should be like.
>
>         -- Eric Braude
>         Boston University
>

Subject: Reminder: FASE issue on Education and Licensing
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 16:24:18 -0500
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>

[My apologies in advance for duplicate postings.]

Call for Position Statements

FASE (Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education) - electronic
newsletter (http://www.cs.ttu.edu/fase)

July 1998 Topic: Licensing of Professional Engineers in Software
Engineering

Very few countries currently license software engineers. As has been
reported in various electronic media over the last several months,
Texas has been planning to license professional engineers (PEs) in
software engineering, with the final, unanimous vote in favor having
come on 17 June 1998. (See http://www.main.org/peboard/sofupdt.htm for
the latest details.) It is expected that the rest of the United States
will follow suit soon thereafter.

Licensing of software engineers by a governmental unit has an obvious
impact on the higher education of students who plan to pursue a
license. For instance, in the United States, it is much easier to
obtain a PE license if one has a degree from a program accredited by
ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology). As reported
in previous issues of FASE and elsewhere, ABET is considering program
criteria for accrediting software engineering programs.

Another issue involves the fact that computer science programs
accredited by the Computer Sciences Accreditation Board (CSAB) may
eventually be considered equivalent to an ABET-approved degree for the
purposes of licensing. (The new guidelines in Texas place CSAB
accreditation below ABET, with four more years of experience required
for the former.)

Finally, the morning session of the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE)
exam, which is given in the United States to engineering students
around the time of their graduation, includes section on topics such as
statics, thermodynamics, and materials. (The nature of the morning
section may change because of the inclusion of software engineering as
one of the disciplines; for instance, there may be additional sections
on the exam, and the student picks X out of Y parts of the exam to
take. However, nothing has yet been decided on this issue.)

Position statements on the issue of education of students who
potentially could be licensed as software engineers are requested. The
position statements can be as short as a paragraph or as long as 203
pages.

Some of the questions that could be addressed in your position
statement are:

1. How much should a software engineering curriculum be affected by a
licensing exit exam such as the FE?

2. (a) How will software engineering programs (and the potential for
new programs) be affected if accredited computer science programs are
considered equivalent educational background?
(b) If CS students are allowed to take the same exit exam for
engineer licensing as SE students, should the exam be SE-oriented,
CS-oriented, or a combination?
(c) How much should the computer science curriculum be affected by
such an exit exam?

Although the licensing issue is currently of special interest to the
United States, due to ongoing events, people from outside of the U.S.
are also encouraged to share their thoughts on these issues as they
relate to education and licensing in their respective countries.

Please send any position statements to Don Bagert at bagert@ttu.edu no
later than July 8.

Using the following guidelines for submission is encouraged: ASCII
format, with no more than 70 characters per line (71 including the new
line character). This 70-character/line format should be viewable in a
text editor such as Microsoft Notepad WITHOUT using a "word wrap"
facility. All characters (outside of the newline) should in the ASCII
code range from 32 to 126 (i.e. "printable" in DOS text mode).

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Subject: Texas Board - application date correction
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 09:40:50 -0500
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: fase-talk <fase-talk@cpm211-1.cs.ttu.edu>

[My apologies in advance for duplicate postings.]

Dave Dorchester (Chair of the Licensing Committee of the Texas Board of
Professional Engineers) asked me to pass along the fact that
applications for a professional engineering license in the branch of
software engineering (see previous note below) will not actually be
accepted until 20 days after the guidelines are published, which will be
on August 1. Previously, I had mistakenly thought that it was 20 days
after the affirmative vote on June 17.

"Unfortunately, applications received before [August 1, 1998] must be
returned without being processed." (from
http://www.main.org/peboard/sofupdt.htm)

I apologize for unknowingly providing you with inaccurate information.

Sincerely,

Don Bagert
bagert@ttu.edu
___

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Don Bagert
Associate Professor of Computer Science
Texas Tech University
bagert@ttu.edu

Subject: company-based certification
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:51:30 -0600
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: fase-talk@listserv.ttu.edu

Hello, FASE-TALK subscribers. I know that this list has been quiet
for some time, but I hope that it will be used with more frequency
in the future.

I would like to discuss the recent rash of certification programs
that have popped up across the country. I am not talking about
ICCP, which has existed for many years, and gives more of a general
CS certification exam, but those programs that are tied to a specific
company, the most well-known and popular of these being "Microsoft
Certified System Engineer" (MCSE).

The impression that I am increasing getting is that teenagers are
getting the impression that either 1) programs such as MCSE will allow
them to get some college credit in computer science, or 2) that they
can skip college altogether and just get the proper certifications,
which can propel them into a successful computer career. Both
suppositions are, of course, incorrect; I don't know of any four-year
college that will give regular credit for passing such programs, and
while bypassing college may provide a paying job in the short term,
they will likely need a Bachelor's degree to have a long, successful
career in the industry.

These certification programs are unfortunately finding their way
into the educational mainstream. For instance, some universities
(even those with a College of Engineering!) are offering an MCSE
course as part of their continuing education program, and our local
school district recently announced that they would offer a number
of high school courses that would lead to certification, including
the MCSE.

As implied from above, a particular concern with the MCSE program is
the use of the term "engineer"; even though the term used is "system
engineer", the program is software-based. My understanding in hearing
an explanation from the Executive Director of the Texas Board of
Professional Engineers is that it is not illegal to sell MCSE
materials in Texas, but it is illegal to call yourself a Microsoft
Certified System Engineer and offer software engineering (or
equivalent) services to member(s) of the public in that state.

With all this in mind, I'm very concerned about this situation,
especially since the number of people taking MCSE and other similar
certification programs, and the public's acceptance as a substitute
for a college education, appears to be rising at an alarming rate.

I'd like to hear your opinions on the subject.

Don Bagert
FASE Co-Editor
bagert@ttu.edu

P.S. Anyone subscribing to the FASE-TALK listserv should be able to
send a message to the list using fase-talk@listserv.ttu.edu.
Please feel free to start your own discussions on this list. If you
have any problems with sending mail to the listserv address, please
contact me.

Subject: Company based certificates.
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:55:09 -0500
From: Mike McCracken <mike@cc.gatech.edu>
To: fase-talk@ttacs6.ttu.edu

In response to Don's questions here are some things I have been worrying over.
1. For the moment, forget the inappropriate use of descriptors (such as
engineer, etc), and think about the content of the material being offered
in high schools and trade schools.
2. If I were a young sport, interested in computing, and not inclined to
go to college, what options do I have? Historically, that person could
enter some type of trade program in their high school and become a
machinist, or a technician of some sort, or whatever. The programs were
obviously oriented around models of training, but these folks were able to
have careers in the trades.   The types of programs Don described may be
filling that niche.
3. With the dumming up of the University system it seems that to get a
secretarial job these days you need to have a bs (generally folks who get a
degree in an area that is in low demand), or worse get a bs at a school
that is so bad that all you can get is a clerical job.   This little soap
box is based on my personal issue of society deciding that everyone needs a
college education to be employable.
4. I think the model that Don is describing is an indirect reversion to
the trade school model. That is, attain enough knowledge and skill to get
a technical job without having to go to College. A term I use to describe
this is, information technicians.
5. I personally think it is a good idea, and I suspect (haven't done the
surveys) that industry needs these types of people along with their college
grads.
6. I agree with Don that over-advertising and possibly implying that the
certificates are transferable into an academic program or at least
equivalent to a College degree is not right. The point is more of truth in
advertising.   Some of you may be old enough to remember the advertising in
match books to learn various trades through mail order courses.
Lots of other things come to mind, but I'll stop here for the moment.
Mike

Subject: Company based certificates
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:58:47 -0600
From: Laurie Werth <lwerth@cs.utexas.edu>
To: fase-talk@ttacs6.ttu.edu
CC: lwerth@cs.utexas.edu

Mike makes a good point about the high school grads who don't want to
go to college. A more serious problem is the increasing number who
don't even finish high school - the prospect of good jobs would help
a few of them stay in school to get reasonable training.

I have three points:

1.      One of my objections to the certificate programs is the high
        cost. At $2000-$10,000 each, they are a big profit center for
        the companies - with no pressure to see that students actually
        complete the training once they have paid.

        This is not a new problem. One of the popular match cover
        programs promised that you too could could be a programmer -
        for $1000 (at lot of money 20 years ago) you received a
        flowchart template, a little book, and the opportunity to
        mailed in a few FORTRAN programming efforts to be graded.

        Don't know if they still have the federal grants to cover
        training, but there were many rip-off programs which had
        only to say that students were qualified and get them to
        sign a loan agreement - some offered stereos etc. as
        incentives. The training might have included learning to
        run the old card sorters etc. but having gotten their money
        there was little motivation to teach anything.

2.      One thing that would help would be public education.
        The licensing effort will provide some publicity - we hope.
        Just having various curriculum tracks laid out for two year,
        undergraduate and several varieties of MS programs with
        Continuing Education can be enlightening. The web is an
        obvious place for this.

        There are beginning to be a number of Distance Learning/
        Continuing Education programs offered over the web. I'm
        trying to get some of these on my Computer and Professional
        Ethics web site: www.cs.utexas.edu/users/ethics/

3.      Chip companies in Austin are desparate for workers to make
        chips - the groceries can't even hire bag boys due to the
        very attractive positions available. They work with the
        Community Colleges to develop training for potential workers.
        The Community Colleges also provide beginning classes in
        programming etc. which has enabled some bright folks get
        a start - if only to work on Y2K problems.

I would appreciate any comments and suggestions.

Laurie Honour Werth
Department of Computer Sciences
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1188

Phone: 512-471-9535
Fax: 512-471-8885
email: lwerth@cs.utexas.edu

Subject: Growth of Software Engineering Education
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:08:50 -0600
From: Don Bagert <bagert@ttu.edu>
To: fase-talk@listserv.ttu.edu

Something that has interested me over the last year is the growth of
software engineering education, or (possibly) the lack of it. While we
see a number of initiatives related to Software Engineering as a
Profession (e.g. the SWECC), have seen two groups working on software
engineering undergraduate curriculum issues, and in the United States
have seen accreditation guidelines approved, we haven't seen the
groundswell of interest in software engineering education. Two cases
in point: the attendance at CSEE&T has been about the same for the past
few years, and FASE subscriptions have only gone up slightly since
there was a large increase in March 1998. (Note: a number of expired
email addresses are being deleted from the subscriber list for the next
issue, so the February 1999 subscription number is inflated.)

In the U.S., there has been more interest in software engineering at
the Frontiers in Education conference, but there has not been much of
an increase in the number of undergraduate and graduate software
engineering programs. There do seem to be more ads for computer
science and engineering faculty asking for applications in the area of
software engineering; however, as a person from one of those schools,
there are not many applicants to choose from.

So here are my questions: will we eventually see a large growth in
software engineering degree and specialty programs? Is the apparent
lack of growth in such programs real, and if so, is it due to lack of
interest, or to a lack to qualified faculty? If faculty is the
problem, would Ph.D. programs in software engineering be of any help?
(An aside: I have seen several faculty ads recently looking for a Ph.D.
in "computer science or software engineering", despite the fact that
the only SE doctoral program I have ever heard of is with a consortium
of schools in France.) Is all of this roughly the same as for computer
science in the mid-1960's, right before ACM Curriculum '68 came out?

As always, I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Don

Subject: [Q:] Journal(s) on Software Engineering Education
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 15:04:55 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Jurgen Borstler <jubo@cs.umu.se>
To: fase-talk@ttacs6.ttu.edu

Dear Colleagues,

do you know of any international *refereed* Journal(s) on Software
Engineering Education? If so how do you rate them?

   o SIGCSE Bulletin occasionally publishes refereed articles,
     but is oriented towards Computer Science Education in general.
     For more information see
        http://www.acm.org/sigcse/bulletin/

   o Computer Science Education is oriented towards Computer Science
     Education in general and publishes articles on Software
     Engineering Education more or less regularly.
     For more information see
        http://www.swets.nl/sps/journals/cse1.html

   o IEEE Transactions on Education is oriented towards Endineering
     Education in general and rarely publishes articles on Software
     Engineering Education. Articles on Computer Science Education are
     published regularly. Has a very long back-log.
     For more information see
        http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/pub_preview/e_toc.html

In case I receive enough input, I'll post a summary of the material.

Thanks for your help,
                      jubo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jürgen Börstler                             phone: +46 (90) 786-6735
Department of Computing Science                   fax: +46 (90) 786-6126
Umeå University                                   e-mail: jubo@cs.umu.se
SE-901 87 Umeå, SWEDEN                  URL: http://www.cs.umu.se/~jubo/

Subject: teaching software process
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:29:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Tom Horton <tom@cse.fau.edu>
To: FASE-Talk List <FASE-TALK@ttacs6.ttu.edu>

Hello. I'm am actively trying to develop better ways of teaching
undergraduate students in software engineering courses about using a
planned and documented software development process.

I'm particularly interested in doing this in two ways:

a) Developing support materials that can be used in a usual SW Engin.
     survey course. Such materials might include a description of the
     activities and deliverables for "lite" process, together with
     templates and examples of documents and other development products.
     Students in this course might simply study these, or be asked to do
     exercises based on these.

b) Using this "lite" process in a project-oriented course where students
     work in teams on a semester-long development project. In this course
     students would be expected to follow the process and create
     development products according to the process.

QUESTION 1: If you're doing anything like this in a software engineering
course, or if you're teaching a project course where a process is defined
and followed, please email me and let me know what you're doing. I'm
particularly interested in seeing samples or templates of things like
Quality Assurance Plans, Design documents, etc.

QUESTION 2: I would be interested in participating in (or organizing) a
Birds of a Feather group at SIGCSE 2000 on teaching software process or
software engineering project courses. If you've already proposed
something like this, or if you're interested in joining in if I set one
up, please get in touch.

BTW, I am aware of the process defined as part of CMU's Studio, but think
we need something simpler for undergraduate courses. I'm also aware of
Humphrey's work in this area, including the recent TSPi book. But again,
I think (for now) that this is pretty intense and "large" to be
incorporated into most undergraduate courses without making a major course
redesign. I know others will feel different, but that's my conclusion
after teaching project-centered courses here at FAU and at the Univ. of
Virginia last spring.

I'll summarize responses back to the list, if there are enough. I am also
cross-posting this to both the SIGCSE and FASE-Talk email lists, so I'll
gather replies from each and summarize to both.

Looking forward to hearing from others with similar interests. Thanks!

Tom Horton

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Thomas B. Horton, Associate Professor
Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, Florida Atlantic University
Boca Raton, FL 33431 USA Phone: 561/297-2674 FAX: 561/297-2800
Internet: tom@cse.fau.edu WWW: http://www.cse.fau.edu/~tom

Subject:

Subject: Re: teaching software process
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:21:24 -0300
From: Gastón Mousqués <mousques@adinet.com.uy>
Reply-To: mousques@athenea.ort.edu.uy
To: FASE-Talk List <FASE-TALK@ttacs6.ttu.edu>

Tom, first of all I have to apology for my English, but I don't
usually write in English.

At our school we have a capstone project of six months duration
in which the students work on projects following a documented
process.

We started this experience six years ago. At the beginning, we
only had a few activities described and templates for a few key
documents and standards. Now we have a process that includes
several manuals for different processes (SQA, SCM, Project
Management, Development, etc), and templates for all the
artifacts created during the development process.
We have a process group lead by one of our instructors that each
semester works with 3 or 4 students on documenting and
improving the process. Each semester, this group has the task of
formalizing some activities of the process that were previously
done informally, or that we think needs to be improved.

I will try to describe briefly the way we work.

At the beginning of the semester we make a call for "project
ideas" in which students can bring a description of a project they
want to work on. The conditions are that the project should have a
person that can act as a user, and that it should have a reasonable
complexity. We also have development agreements with local
companies that provide us with projects and they act as clients
and users.

After selecting the candidate projects we present them to the
students, and ask them to form a development group of 4 to 8
students, and to choose the project they want to work on.

During the first month we have a period of training in which we
teach short courses on topics like requirements engineering,
project management, design, tools, etc. The goal of these courses
is to review the main software engineering topics covered during
the previous semester's courses and to get the students
acquainted with the process.

After this period of training each group must adapt the process to
the project they are going to work on; they must choose and
justify which roles and practices of the ones prescribed by the
process they are going to follow.

Once the projects are set, we assign an instructor to each group
that acts as a mentor that helps the students with the problems
they have while working on the project.
As an additional level of assistance to the students, we have what
we call Role Mentors (Manager, Architect, SQA, Design.). The
role mentor meets weekly with all the students that are
performing a specific role to discuss problems and to study
different practices they must use.

I know that from this description our process might look
heavyweight, but we make real emphasis on having each group
adapt the process to their project needs. Also, it may look that we
have a large group of instructors, but our staff is of 4 role mentors
and 3 or 4 group mentors (all working part-time). Each semester
we work with 25 or 40 students (this is one of the advantages of
working with a process we can repeat).

The experience so far has been very good, especially because
students learn how to work under a process, they face the
problems of working on groups, and they apply SE practices on a
real project with real pressures. Each semester we make student
surveys on the experience, and we also try to get feedback from
the student's employers once they are hired.

But there are also some drawbacks. For some projects 6 month is
not enough time to cover the full life cycle and at the same time to
learn how to apply SE practices. Sometimes is difficult to select
projects complex enough to effectively apply SE practices during a
time span of 6 month. Next year, under our new plan of study, we
will extend the projects to one year.
Another drawback is that students specialize on one or two roles
and they don't get to know in depth the activities performed by
other members.

I hope our experience helps,

---------------------------
Gastón Mousqués
Cátedra de Ingeniería de Software
Facultad de Ingeniería
Universidad ORT Uruguay

Date sent:              Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:29:43 -0500 (EST)
From:                   Tom Horton <tom@cse.fau.edu>
Send reply to:          Tom Horton <tom@cse.fau.edu>
To:                     FASE-Talk List <FASE-TALK@ttacs6.ttu.edu>
Subject:                teaching software process

> Hello. I'm am actively trying to develop better ways of teaching
> undergraduate students in software engineering courses about using a
> planned and documented software development process.
>
> I'm particularly interested in doing this in two ways:
>
>   a) Developing support materials that can be used in a usual SW
>   Engin.
>      survey course. Such materials might include a description of the
>      activities and deliverables for "lite" process, together with
>      templates and examples of documents and other development
>      products. Students in this course might simply study these, or be
>      asked to do exercises based on these.
>
>   b) Using this "lite" process in a project-oriented course where
>   students
>      work in teams on a semester-long development project. In this
>      course students would be expected to follow the process and
>      create development products according to the process.
>
> QUESTION 1: If you're doing anything like this in a software
> engineering course, or if you're teaching a project course where a
> process is defined and followed, please email me and let me know what
> you're doing. I'm particularly interested in seeing samples or
> templates of things like Quality Assurance Plans, Design documents,
> etc.
>
> QUESTION 2: I would be interested in participating in (or organizing)
> a Birds of a Feather group at SIGCSE 2000 on teaching software process
> or software engineering project courses. If you've already proposed
> something like this, or if you're interested in joining in if I set
> one up, please get in touch.
>
> BTW, I am aware of the process defined as part of CMU's Studio, but
> think we need something simpler for undergraduate courses. I'm also
> aware of Humphrey's work in this area, including the recent TSPi book.
> But again, I think (for now) that this is pretty intense and "large"
> to be incorporated into most undergraduate courses without making a
> major course redesign. I know others will feel different, but that's
> my conclusion after teaching project-centered courses here at FAU and
> at the Univ. of Virginia last spring.
>
> I'll summarize responses back to the list, if there are enough. I am
> also cross-posting this to both the SIGCSE and FASE-Talk email lists,
> so I'll gather replies from each and summarize to both.
>
> Looking forward to hearing from others with similar interests.
> Thanks!
>
> Tom Horton
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --- Dr. Thomas B. Horton, Associate Professor Dept. of Computer
> Science and Engineering, Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL
> 33431 USA        Phone: 561/297-2674   FAX: 561/297-2800 Internet:
> tom@cse.fau.edu       WWW: http://www.cse.fau.edu/~tom
>
>
>
>

Subject: Re: teaching software process
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 21:24:28 -0500 (EST)
From: David Alex Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca>
To: tom@cse.fau.edu
CC: FASE-TALK@ttacs6.ttu.edu

I have been teaching "software process" or "software project" or "overview of
Software Engineering" courses since 1985. For several years I used a non-OO
"lite" process based on my 1988 textbook, "Software Engineering: Planning for
Change", now out of print; the book had simple sample documents in appendices.

This term I've introduced a variant of the process outlined in
Rob Pooley and Perdita Stevens, Using UML: Software Engineering with Objects
and Components, Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-36067-5
for a 3rd year course (http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/322/) whose primary
focus is architecture and design documentation, but where the students are
required to prototype their design using a simple Java framework I built
(http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/qcis/). The idea of using a framework is to
limit the amount of code they have to write, and to teach them to adapt to a
structure and set of components provided by someone else.

I expect to use this term's best student projects as examples for next year.

The previous incarnation, which did more on configuration management and
quality assurance, and had no framework, was always very challenging for the
students. This year, with the framework, plenty of people build something
reasonable in a few weeks, after 6-8 weeks of design (use cases, conceptual
modeling, interaction diagrams, and selecting a subset of the design to
implement).

Our new Software Design undergraduate program (which begins to deviate from
our current Computer Science program in the 2nd year, starting Fall 2000) will
have a full-year software project course - but it will also have 1-term
courses prior to that on quality assurance, architecture, requirements
analysis, and human-computer interaction.

Subject: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:01:37 -0500
From: Don Bagert <Don.Bagert@TTU.EDU>
Reply-To: FASE Discussion <fase-talk@lyris.acs.ttu.edu>
To: FASE Discussion <fase-talk@lyris.acs.ttu.edu>

The current issue of FASE (distributed at about the same time as this
email) mostly concerns ACM's withdrawal from the Software Engineering
Coordinating Committee (SWEcc). I would like to invite and encourage
your comments in FASE-TALK regarding this very important story.

I look forward to some great discussion in this space!

Don Bagert
FASE Professional Issues Editor

--
Donald J. Bagert, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor and Associate Chair
Department of Computer Science
Texas Tech University
8th and Boston
Lubbock TX 79409-3104 USA

Email: Don.Bagert@ttu.edu
Voice: 806-742-1189
Fax: 806-742-3519
URL: http://www.cs.ttu.edu/faculty/bagert.html

Subject: Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:42:15 -0400
From: "Paul E. MacNeil" <macneil_pe@Mercer.EDU>
Reply-To: FASE Discussion <fase-talk@lyris.acs.ttu.edu>
Organization: Mercer University School of Engineering
To: FASE Discussion <fase-talk@lyris.acs.ttu.edu>

What are the implications of the ACM action for software engineering
accreditation? for CS accreditation?

Don Bagert wrote:

> The current issue of FASE (distributed at about the same time as this
> email) mostly concerns ACM's withdrawal from the Software Engineering
> Coordinating Committee (SWEcc). I would like to invite and encourage
> your comments in FASE-TALK regarding this very important story.
>
> I look forward to some great discussion in this space!
>
> Don Bagert
> FASE Professional Issues Editor
>
> --
> Donald J. Bagert, Ph.D., P.E.
> Professor and Associate Chair
> Department of Computer Science
> Texas Tech University
> 8th and Boston
> Lubbock TX 79409-3104 USA
>
> Email: Don.Bagert@ttu.edu
> Voice: 806-742-1189
> Fax: 806-742-3519
> URL: http://www.cs.ttu.edu/faculty/bagert.html
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to fase-talk as: macneil_pe@MERCER.EDU
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-fase-talk-3002Q@lyris.acs.ttu.edu

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul E. MacNeil, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Software Engineering Program Director
School of Engineering
Mercer University
1400 Coleman Ave.
Macon, Georgia 31207
tel: (912) 301-2185 (effective July 9, 1999, 301 replaced 752)
fax: (912) 301-2732
backup fax: (912) 301-2166
macneil_pe@mercer.edu
http://www.mercer.edu/engineering/GRAD_PROGRAMS/sse.htm
http://www.accucomm.net/~macneil/index.html

Subject: Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:43:12 -0400
From: Chris Starr <starr@CS.cofc.EDU>
Reply-To: FASE Discussion <fase-talk@lyris.acs.ttu.edu>
To: FASE Discussion <fase-talk@lyris.acs.ttu.edu>

Good question. I don't know the motivations that would make ACM do
this. I'll look forward to the conversation. C

>     What are the implications of the ACM action for software engineering
>accreditation? for CS accreditation?
>
>Don Bagert wrote:
>
>> The current issue of FASE (distributed at about the same time as this
>> email) mostly concerns ACM's withdrawal from the Software Engineering
>> Coordinating Committee (SWEcc). I would like to invite and encourage
>> your comments in FASE-TALK regarding this very important story.
>>
>> I look forward to some great discussion in this space!
>>
>> Don Bagert
>> FASE Professional Issues Editor
>>
>> --
>> Donald J. Bagert, Ph.D., P.E.
>> Professor and Associate Chair
>> Department of Computer Science
>> Texas Tech University
>> 8th and Boston
>> Lubbock TX 79409-3104 USA
>>
>> Email: Don.Bagert@ttu.edu
>> Voice: 806-742-1189
>> Fax:   806-742-3519
>> URL:   http://www.cs.ttu.edu/faculty/bagert.html
>>
>> ---
>> You are currently subscribed to fase-talk as: macneil_pe@MERCER.EDU
>> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-fase-talk-3002Q@lyris.acs.ttu.edu
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul E. MacNeil, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor, Software Engineering Program Director
>School of Engineering
>Mercer University
>1400 Coleman Ave.
>Macon, Georgia 31207
>tel: (912) 301-2185 (effective July 9, 1999, 301 replaced 752)
>fax: (912) 301-2732
>backup fax: (912) 301-2166
>macneil_pe@mercer.edu
>http://www.mercer.edu/engineering/GRAD_PROGRAMS/sse.htm
>http://www.accucomm.net/~macneil/index.html
>
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to fase-talk as: starr@CS.COFC.EDU
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-fase-talk-3002Q@lyris.acs.ttu.edu

--
-------------------------------------
Christopher W. Starr, Ph.D., Chairman
Department of Computer Science
College of Charleston
66 George Street
Charleston, SC 29424

voice (843) 953-6905
fax (843) 953-8154
mailto:starr@cs.cofc.edu

Subject: RE: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:13:29 -0500
From: Seletsky Robert Contr SA-ALC/LDAE <rseletsky@onboard-software.com>
Reply-To: FASE Discussion <fase-talk@lyris.acs.ttu.edu>
To: FASE Discussion <fase-talk@lyris.acs.ttu.edu>

I do not know the imapct for accreditation, but I would hope that the ACM
would work with the IEEE-CS on projects that have no direct relation to
licensing.
From what I have read on the ACM website, it seems that a majority of the
ACM council (and not all ACM members) believes that licensing will not
ensure software reliability especially for safety critical systems.
If the IEEE-CS continues the licensing effort on its own then software
engineering probably will end up in the engineering colleges and will be
heavily influenced by the engineering educational system.
This split between Computer Scientists and the relatively new "Software
Engineers" reminds me of the original split between the Electical Engineers
and the Computer Scientists -- so if history is any guide I feel that
Software Engineering will split off from Computer Science

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Starr [mailto:starr@CS.cofc.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 2:43 PM
> To: FASE Discussion
> Subject: Re: ACM's Withdrawal from SWEcc
>
>
> Good question. I don't know the motivations that would make ACM do
> this. I'll look forward to the conversation. C
>
> > What are the implications of the ACM action for
> software engineering
> >accreditation? for CS accreditation?
> >
> >Don Bagert wrote:
> >
> >> The current issue of FASE (distributed at about the same
> time as this
> >> email) mostly concerns ACM's withdrawal from the Software
> Engineering
> >> Coordinating Committee (SWEcc). I would like to invite
> and encourage
> >> your comments in FASE-TALK regarding this very important story.
> >>
> >> I look forward to some great discussion in this space!
> >>
> >> Don Bagert
> >> FASE Professional Issues Editor
> >>
> >> --
> >> Donald J. Bagert, Ph.D., P.E.
> >> Professor and Associate Chair
> >> Department of Computer Science
> >> Texas Tech University

> >> 8th and Boston
> >> Lubbock TX 79409-3104 USA
> >>
> >> Email: Don.Bagert@ttu.edu
> >> Voice: 806-742-1189
> >> Fax: 806-742-3519
> >> URL: http://www.cs.ttu.edu/faculty/bagert.html
> >>
<