summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/info/digests/texline/no13/matter
blob: 9588113326afc18b5e43bfe0ba192b7be06ba35b (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331

{
\let\subsection\section

\title{The matter of TUG}
TUG has changed and is changing. Until the appearance of
{\sl \TeX\ and TUG News} (TTN), TUG's newsletter, which was
sent to every TUG member, the nature of these changes has
not been made very public. For reasons which are sometimes
clear and sometimes obscure, the details have not really
been shared widely by the membership. Apart from the
understandably bland and anodyne reports in TTN, other details can
be found in the reports furnished by the five or six
so-called international vice presidents. Regretably
neither the President, Nelson Beebe, nor the Vice
President, Rick Furuta presented their membership the
guidance and information they deserved. But despite these
inferred misgivings, I remain confident that TUG has a
future, and that TUG remains the international voice of
\TeX.

TUG gives some appearance of being unhealthy and
moribund. I suspect there are a number of reasons for
this. Let me try to gather together some of these, and
then tell you why I think that the alarum bells need not be
sounded yet.


\subsection{\TeX3}
First, \TeX\ itself. For a moment ignore
the euphoria about \TeX3 and virtual fonts. Really there is
not much that is new there. ML\TeX\ had already solved the
eight bit `problem' and virtual fonts had actually been
around for a good many years. What \TeX3 did was to make
these available in a non-proprietary way, so that they
were truly part of \TeX. Perhaps more significant is
Knuth's statement that there is to be no more development
of \TeX\ at all (or of \MF\ or Computer Modern). The only
proviso is that bug fixes may be carried out, until such
times as Knuth's death, at which point work on \TeX\ must
cease. Any development based on \TeX\ may not be called
\TeX. It is by no means clear to me where, for example
J\TeX, V\TeX, or extended Computer Modern fit into this
embargo, but I guess we would all wish to respect Knuth's
wishes. There is a slight paradox here. For many years,
\TeX\ had not changed: basically since 1982. In the
intervening years it has become evident that there were
some pretty severe deficiencies in the system which, it
could be argued, precluded it from achieving its avowed
aim of producing `masterpieces of the typesetting art',
unless of course that masterpiece happened to be {\sl The
Art of Computer Programming}. The innovation of \TeX3
suddenly reawakened the dream that perhaps Knuth would see
\TeX\ as an evolving project. And just as suddenly, the
prospect was dashed from our lips. My own hopes were that
Knuth would refuse to bring \TeX\ up to an 8-bit standard,
and equally to be unwilling to allow the hyphenation and
diacritical support that we needed. In this way, the \TeX\
world would have been forced to create a structure where
enhancements like these could be accommodated, and \TeX\
would still be \TeX. Instead, any improvements or changes
will have to adopt a much more radical model. At much the
same time, Leslie Lamport agreed that \LaTeX\ 2.09 would
be `corrected' to version 2.10. This work was not to be
done by Lamport, but by a team led by the  dynamic duo
(Mittelbach \& Sch\"opf), under the chairmanship of
Lamport himself. This project evolved into the \LaTeX3
project. So, in a sense, we have had the self removal of
the chief players. What we are noting is that the flame
is being passed on to a new generation, and that at the
moment of being passed on it is in danger of being
guttered.

Ideally one would like the flame to be passed to TUG.
TUG's support for \TeX\ is considerable, as one would
hope. I guess it is widely known that it was TUG funding
which enabled the \TeX\ project to be completed in the
first place, and that it supports the {\tt texhax} digest
and Orin Patashnik's completion of \BibTeX. It also
supports a wide educational programme -- perhaps wider
than you might realise, since many courses are delivered
in house, with no advertising in TUGboat or elsewhere.

\section{TUG works}
A brief account of TUG's continuing  activities includes
\bitem \TUGboat: perhaps the single most cogent reason for membership
of the group. Now published four times a year and comprising around 600
pages in total, \TUGboat\ contains information on new developments in
\TeX, \LaTeX, \AmSTeX, \MF, and the allied macro packages.

 \bitem  TUG's annual meeting brings \TeX\ users together to learn the
latest in \TeX\ applications and innovations through seminars, talks
and informal gatherings (the last three conferences have featured
10-pin bowling as a major social event). Each conference is
informative, but it is also friendly. 

\bitem  TUG provides  a single location for
information, documentation and product purchase for
\TeX-related materials (hardware, software, publications).


\bitem pursues ways of extending the use and
applications of \TeX\ into many areas (such as publishing
-- hence the 1991 theme for the annual meeting).

\bitem continues to provide seminars and classes for beginner,
intermediate and advanced \TeX\ users. It is also developing 
new courses in other areas of concern to the community, for
example typography, document design\dots
                                                       
\bitem is investigating methods for sponsorship to help
 form and stimulate
Local User Groups (LUGs).

\bitem the publications committee is developing `\TeX\ and
TUG News', a second TUG publication which may be available
electronically, demonstrating  \TeX's portability.

\bitem the {\sc dvi} standards committee is working towards
providing standards for drivers. The level 0 will be
available `shortly'.

\bitem  is looking into ways in which it might `certify'
\TeX\ products.

\bitem  is compiling  a Resource Directory of all \TeX\
material available; commercial and public domain \TeX\ implementations;
supporting software; documentation; publishing services -- a sort of `Whole
\TeX\ Catalogue'. TUG members should have received their copy by now.

\bitem  has recently purchased a disk copier so
that it can begin to  supply public domain software to the
membership, in cooperation with Jon Radel.

\bitem  increasing public awareness of \TeX,
particularly to the  user of personal machines, not
connected to any electronic network.

\bitem Discounts: members obtain discounts on the annual meeting,
TUG-sponsored courses and selected publications. There are also student
rates for both membership and courses.

From where does TUG obtain its funding? TUG's
income comes from two sources: membership subscriptions
and from `generated income'. The membership subscriptions
cover \TUGboat\ but also leave a substantial surplus. In
1990 the membership dues were \$171,000 and the
TUGboat expenses were only about half of this at \$92,000.   Note though
that there is an advertising income of \$33,000; I assume that most of
that advertising is in \TUGboat. Running the TUG office  is met from the
generated income. This includes sales, courses and conferences. (Yes,
that's why they are so expensive.) In 1990, total TUG income was
\$623,700. The two largest components of income were from the annual
meeting and  courses (\$206,000), and from the sales of
books, software etc. (\$190,000).  I~personally believe this
factor, that the income generated from sources other than membership
accounts for only 27\% of the total income inhibits
serious attention to  membership expansion. After all, extra members do
not bring in significant amounts of extra cash. The net benefit is
not large. Increasing
membership by say 1000 would probably only generate  \$35,000, less
say \$5--10,000 for \TUGboat\ and its postage. Perhaps TUG should be
pursuing industrial sponsorship from those hundreds of organisations who
have or do benefit from \TeX: like DEC, Interleaf, IBM etc. At present
they depend rather too much on the benevolence of a few vendors. No
vendor I have talked to feels they have had any real `commercial'
benefit from adverts in \TUGboat\ or attendance at the conferences. In
fact, I was recently struck by the fact that in  \TUGboat\  Volume~11,
no.~4, there was no advert from PC\thinspace\TeX, for so long a stalwart
supporter of the magazine.

The dependence on courses for generation of income has
meant that the recent downturn in the US economy has had
a deleterious effect on TUG. The reduction in in-house
courses has, at a stroke, induced a serious financial
shortfall. After all, what is the first thing you cut
back on? Why, education. In fact the sums are not so bad
and TUG can survive on its reserves for a few years, serious thought
has to be given to the pattern of finances.

\subsection{The truth, but only some of the truth}
But this still skirts round the problem. Let's tackle it
at last. At the end of 1990, Ray Goucher, for many years
TUG's Executive Director, left the organisation. I think
it is fair  to say that this was not the happiest of
partings. Partly as a result, the Treasurer, David Ness,
the Vice President, Rick Furuta,  and later the Secretary,
Calvin Jackson, have tendered their resignations. This in
itself is no recipe for disaster, since the President may
appoint replacements. Sadly though, as far as the Board is concerned,
Nelson Beebe was curiously silent  from late October 1990 through to
about the middle of March 1991 (and not too voluble since). The
Executive and Finance Committee were unable to act. This was especially
sad, since the rest of the Board of Directors  affirmed
its willingness and determination to rally round in time of
crisis and to be directed in ways which are constructive.
In the face of this inaction, the TUG office  thrived.
Despite dire warnings from the President of mass staff
resignations, the staff were as committed and active as
ever. Under the temporary direction of the extremely able
Ron Whitney, the business of TUG continued. 

In passing, Charlotte Larendeau, has recently married and has moved to
California with her new husband. Charlotte's dynamic presence will be
missed. She put her heart and soul into TUG and I'm delighted that she
had time for romance (although rumour murmurs that email had an important
part to play). Far from wishing to leave TUG, Charlotte may in the
future be called on to help organise other conferences.


\subsection{The problems restated}
We therefore have three visible problems: that the former
direction, embodied by Knuth (and to some extent,
Lamport) is no longer there; that the TUG Executive
apparently went absent without leave; and that TUG is
going through a period of financial austerity. I do not
believe that any of these are reasons to despair. In the
first case, try to remember why Knuth wrote \TeX\ in the
first place. Recall that he only expected it to be used
by himself and his secretary; that it is a software tool
to assist the production of {\sl The Art of Computer
Programming}. Yes, it took on a life of its own, like
some creation by Frankenstein. (I would be prepared to
argue that the analogy may be pursued further, but only
after a few beers\dots) The matter of the Executive was
serious, but it has been evident for some years that the
mechanism by which the executive are elected and the
remainder of the Board appointed, needed substantial
overhaul. It may have been adequate in the days when TUG
membership was a small and almost exclusively from the
United States, but it does not suit a large international
organisation.  Apart
from the four elected office bearers, the only other
elected members of the Board were the `International' Vice
Presidents (presumably elected by their own groups). The
title of Vice President is more an honorific one than one
which actually bestows obligations on the bearer. So what
I am saying is that this was a crisis that was bound to
occur, by the very nature of the Board structure. 

And
lastly, the financial problem: it is unfortunate that
this should occur at a time when TUG should be extending
its services to its membership, and should be more
vigorously pursuing fields like publishing. Still, as
Joachim Lammarsch of \dante\ and and Bernard Gaulle of
\GB\ have both pointed out, much can be done with volunteer
help. TUG seems to lack the skills to mobilise volunteers.
Perhaps the fact that we have paid, professional, office
staff has encouraged us, the membership, to assume that we
are paying to have things done and therefore need not lift
our hands to help. Clearly this is not a fair statement,
since so many TUG members do give selflessly of their
time and energy to TUG and \TeX\ related activities.,
But note that the financial position is not as bad as once
thought. Despite David Ness' scaremongering about a purported
\$50,000 loss, attributable to the breakdown between the Executive and
the remainder of the Board, close attention to the accounts will reveal
not only that there is currently only a small projected loss for 1991,
but that a  sum of \$44,000 is listed in the 1990 accounts as `expense
associated with departure of ED'. I am unable to find any evidence
for Ness' claims. The office staff, and especially Ron Whitney are to be
commended for their close attention to financial details over the last
year.

\subsection{A ray of hope}
In March a board meeting was convened in Dedham. Despite the absence
of Nelson Beebe, and most of the rest of the Executive
and Finance committes, this was a very
successful meeting which helped to repair most of the
damage done by the Executive's abrogation of their
responsibilities. This meeting has been reported to some extent in
{\sl \TeX\ and TUG News}. I took it as a mark of some progress  that
even the dour Bernard Gaulle appeared to return more confident that TUG
has a future. Among the plans adopted were that (at last) the Long Range
Planning Committee will get under way; that a Publications Committee
will review the current TUG publications and make proposals for new
publications, which  include a more informal newsletter (TTN), and that
the voting procedure and the board structure will be overhauled. Much
other work was done on the infrastructure of the Board, laying a useful
foundation for the future. Reading between the lines much of the success
of this board meeting seems to have lain in the absence of the old
rearguard and the active, positive participation and preparation of
people like Hope Hamilton and Christina Thiele who ensured that the
meeting ran smoothly, was planned, and tackled the serious issues.
Equally, the real support of the TUG office staff was an essential
component.

\subsection{Since the Annual Meeting}
The fruits of these changes began to be reaped at the Annual Meeting at
Dedham. The Long Range Planning Committee spend a lot of time together,
immediately before, and during the meeting, and started to lay out a
far reaching set of proposals which will be gathered together and
published in some form by the end of the year. Similarly, the
Publications Committee drew up the beginnings of a comprehensive
overhaul of TUG's approach to publications. Other active committees
included the Site Selection Committee for the 1992 meeting. The other
major issue was the mechanics of the election of next year's Board. The
Board is to be reduced in size to the President and 15 elected members,
plus the 5 existing International Vice Presidents and the three
Honorary members. The 15 elected Board members will be elected by the end
of this year. If you are a TUG member, you will have received details of
the election procedure. The only slightly awkward note was that the
President, who will in future years be elected by postal ballot, was in
this one special instance elected by the existing Board, but only for
the year 1992. In this way, some continuity is ensured. It was thought
to be unwise to have an entirely new Board {\it and\/} President. I find
it incredibly ironic that as one of those who sought greater involvement
of the membership in the selection of the Board and the President, I
should now be in the position of having been elected to the post of
President of TUG by the Board. I'm going to try to live with the irony
(at least for one year).\looseness-1

\subsection{Conclusion}
Despite the problems I believe that \TeX\ is sufficiently
important that joining TUG and participating in it
actively is a small way of expressing my joy, gratitude and
delight. It seems strange to me that we exult in the
public domain aspect of \TeX\ and yet whinge over the
paltry sums needed to join TUG, or fail to return something to the
general good. If we believe that TUG needs changing, it seems more
constructive to participate and try to change it, rather than standing
on the sidelines and bemoaning its current state. We do not
improve TUG by standing aloof, or by creating
rival organisations. The Board has instigated some
radical changes which I believe will ensure the long term
future of the organisation. I am especially confident
that the incoming Board will contain new blood which will
invigorate, brim over with new ideas and spark us all
with their enthusiasm. I look forward enthusiastically to
my period as President.\author{Malcolm Clark}}