Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!abc
From: abc@brl-tgr.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: Maintaining High Quality in AI Products
Message-ID: <3065@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 27-Jun-84 16:02:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.3065
Posted: Wed Jun 27 16:02:56 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 07:11:11 EDT
References: <1057@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 11

I suggest that the ACM provides an appropriate umbrella under which such
an effort can at least be planned.  It is sufficiently broad-based as to
be representative and not exclusive and its democratic procedures
provide protection from the types of abuses that could be possible.  (I
do not mean to slight the AAAI; it's just that ACM seems to have more of
the "mechanisms" that such an efort will need.)

Also, I have felt for many years that ACM should, at least in the US,
provide the kind of accreditation of Computer Science curricula that the
engineering societies provide for theirs.