sign in sign up
<<
Home , Adi Shamir, Alan Perlis, Butler Lampson, Charles Bachman, Leonard Adleman, Maurice Wilkes

BY PETER . DENNING

EIC YEARS FEBRUARY 1983–SEPTEMBER 1992 DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN

After a 10-year struggle within ACM to define a Journal for All Members (JAM), a “new” Communications was launched in the cold of February 1983. CACM was to leave behind its pure research past and transform into a professionally useful, interest- ing, monthly magazine for all members. The CACM that evolved in the decade fol- lowing 1983 is substantially the form you find today. I was the EIC who managed the transition.

o understand the “new” date the growth of the comput- CACM, you need to ing field. understand the “old” CACM that preceded THE PUBLICATIONS STRUGGLE Tit. Stu Lynn has reported that a By the 1970s, the publications simple disagreement over the budget, which covered JACM, covers led to the formation of Reviews, Computing the ACM Publications Board in Surveys, and CACM, was about the mid-1970s and to a major half the ACM budget. The restructuring of the ACM publi- member cost of CACM alone cations in the late 1970s. The was about half the annual dues. 1970s were a major growth ACM revenues were very tight phase for ACM and the com- and everyone was sensitive puting field, with a continuous about returns on investment. stream of amazing new discover- CACM and JACM could not ies and inventions. ACM offered keep up with the explosive its authors two research publish- growth of scientific discoveries ing venues: Journal of the ACM and technology inventions. By (JACM) and CACM. CACM the mid-1970s there were major was the preference for papers queues—and delays averaging about systems, architectures, three years—in both publica- and applications; JACM for the- tions. Authors and readers alike oretical papers. But these two complained bitterly to the ACM journals could not accommo- leadership and Council. Presi-

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM January 2008/Vol. 51, No. 1 35 dential campaigns turned on In 1978, the Publications they saw three-year-old mater- proposals for improving publica- Board, under the leadership of ial. Now they saw nothing. tions, especially CACM. Unfor- Stu Lynn, forged a consensus I spent a lot of time working tunately, there was not enough around a long-range publications with ACM leadership to forge a money to pay for the additional plan. The plan called for the consensus around the JAM ideas pages that would eliminate the establishment of a line of self- as a way to transform CACM CACM backlog. And even if supporting research Transactions and respond to the members. there were, a typical issue would in areas of established need. New The Council asked me to serve as be over half an inch thick! Even- Transactions in the areas of great- EIC when the new CACM tually there was a consensus est backlog in CACM were of launched in early 1983. With the favoring a major restructuring of highest priority. By 1983, six active participation of ACM publications to allow for more Transactions were launched and Council, we put together a plan research publications, each self- the corresponding departments for CACM with these elements: supporting with its own sub- discontinued in CACM. Today, 1. News. Refocus from ACM scriber base. there are 32 Transactions and to industry. Eventually spin off At the same time, an increas- five more are on the way. all ACM news and calendars into ing number of SIGs wanted to The long-range plan also a separate newsletter. (Done in start Transactions in their disci- called for CACM to transform 1990 with the debut of ACM plines. The most active promot- into a concept called “Journal for MemberNet.) ers were programming languages, All Members” that included 2. Computing Practices. Expand computing systems, , aspects of Abacus. However, it coverage of technology topics, graphics, and office automation. took until 1982 for enough of a case studies, and how-to articles The SIGs had surplus funds to consensus to form around this for practitioners, especially soft- put into these publications. idea that it could be incorpo- ware developers. Hire new edi- Under the leadership of Presi- rated into CACM. tors and writers to work dent Tony Ralston, ACM proactively with practitioners to backed a project in AFIPS COMING TO A HEAD: 1982 develop articles. (Ed Sibley was (American Federation for Infor- When I was president of ACM the chief editor for this.) mation Processing Societies, now (1980–1982) I heard numerous 3. Research. Continue the exist- defunct) to launch a Scientific complaints about CACM. At ing research departments in American-style magazine for that time, six Transactions had emerging areas. Work with SIG computing. It was called Abacus. been launched or were about to conferences to get best papers in The prototypes were slick and debut, and CACM’s corre- all other areas, especially in the compelling. Around 1975, sponding research departments departments that had been spun AFIPS declined to launch Abacus were eliminated. Although the off to Transactions. Rewrite these for financial reasons. Ralston backlogs were gone, so was the articles so they can be appreci- tried to persuade ACM to launch technical content. Now the ated by ACM professionals out- a scaled-down version of Abacus, readership had no news whatso- side the immediate research area but it was too costly. The Abacus ever about research advances in of the author. Where necessary, concept, however, established a computer systems, databases, get experts to write opening per- beachhead in the minds of every- graphics, programming lan- spectives to help readers appreci- one thinking about the form of guages, or computer architec- ate the context and significance an improved CACM. ture. At least with the backlogs of a research paper.

To understand the “new” CACM, you need to understand the “old” CACM that has preceded it.

36 January 2008/Vol. 51, No. 1 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM THE MAY 1988 ISSUE FEATURED A FIRST-PERSON ACCOUNT OF CLIFFORD STOLL’S YEAR-LONG ODYSSEY OF SILENTLY TRACKING A GERMAN COMPUTER PROGRAMMER WHO BROKE INTO THE COMPUTER SYSTEM AT LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY (AMONG 40 OTHERS WORLDWIDE) TO DISCOVER THE INTRUDER WAS A SPY SELLING AND MILITARY DATA TO THE KGB. THE STORY, “STALKING THE WILY HACKER,” RECEIVED WORLDWIDE MEDIA COVERAGE.

4. Articles. Establish a new line every issue. memorate the best of CACM in of contributed and professionally This plan drew on the many its first 25 years. written articles in the Abacus ideas from the JAM proposals, But there was one problem: style. reader surveys, and comments. ACM Council wanted us to 5. Columns. Commission reg- We believed it would establish a implement the plan but did not ular columns from excellent new balance among these ele- have the funds to hire all the staff writers. (The first was “Program- ments that would prove to be required to execute the plan. We ming Pearls” by Jon Bentley, much more satisfactory than the were able to hire two new editors beginning August 1983.) CACM of the day. and one journalist, but not the 6. Design. Hire a professional Council endorsed the final five editors and three journalists design company to create a new design and editorial plan in we thought we needed. look and feel for CACM that 1982. The new CACM was Therefore much of my time as integrated all the elements noted launched in February 1983 after EIC was spent on finding cre- here. Consult with them on a special issue in January to com- ative ways to implement as much

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM January 2008/Vol. 51, No. 1 37 of the plan as possible within a more circumspect about dis- continue the research category meager budget. cussing failures and lessons altogether and concentrate on learned in public forums. doing the articles category well. WHAT WORKED AND WHAT I would say we improved Articles. It was quickly appar- DIDN’T CACM’s coverage of computing ent that our resources would not The news section took several practices, but not to the degree allow us to realize our dream of years to find its footing. The we envisioned. In 2002, former giving articles the full Abacus biggest problem was finding ACM president Stephen Bourne treatment. we would need 10 news items that would still be persuaded Council to undertake articles editors and we only had fresh by the time the issue was a major initiative in the comput- two. Moreover, we knew that published. ing practices area by founding many Scientific American readers “Computing Practices” was our Queue magazine. Queue got the found the articles shallow, and biggest challenge. Many practi- budget needed to do this right many authors felt their work was tioners are not inclined to pub- and ACM finally learned how to so rewritten it was no longer lish and so it is necessary for the do it well. theirs. By 1985 we had aban- editorial staff to visit many con- Readable research. We found doned the Scientific American ferences as well as solicit and that many of the articles submit- model and settled instead on write articles. We hired journalist ted to the remaining research Sigma X’s American Scientist Karen Frenkel, who wrote many departments were much less model. Their editors solicit articles and conducted many technical than articles submitted papers from leading researchers, interviews; but these articles were to the old departments. It was asking them to write articles quite labor-intensive. We needed much easier to edit them into the specifically for their publication. three more Karens, but we did article format. We also found Editors work with authors to not have the budget. Her works that making arrangements with improve sentence and article were a big hit with readers. SIG conferences for best papers structure for the best connection Once, Karen and I visited Apple was much more difficult than we with the reader; the objective is Computer to interview Steve thought; they were not a fruitful to improve readability while Jobs (published April 1989). source for CACM. retaining the author’s own voice. When we asked if he thought the When we saw this approach American Scientist readers felt its Internet would be crippled by to research was not viable, we articles had good depth, and hackers, he buried his head in his seriously investigated imitating authors felt it was still their own hands for a full minute; then Science magazine’s approach. The work. We could provide the edit- looked up and said, “No, they idea would be to invite research ing and scouting needed to run see it as a critical infrastructure papers from all sectors of com- this model from within our exist- for their own work.” puting, edit the acceptable ones ing resources. Another major success was the heavily to make them accessible We established regular special case studies conducted by Alfred to our audience, and have a rapid sections to concentrate on Spector and David Gifford of review process. We envisioned a emerging areas discovered by our MIT, who visited project man- day when the New York Times editors. One of our first was a agers and engineers at major would cite a scientific break- compendium of the best com- companies and interviewed them through in a forthcoming article puting humor of all time (Apr. about their projects, producing in the CACM—just like in Sci- 1984, with Peter Neumann as no-holds-barred pieces. This sec- ence. We visited Science magazine editor). Our first outreach sec- tion was wildly popular among to find out how they do it. To tion—Computing in the Fron- the readers. Unfortunately, the our dismay, we discovered that tiers of Science—was published labor-intensive demands of the the number of staff required to as a joint venture with the IEEE post got the best of them after handle the rapid review and edit- Computer Society (Nov. 1985). three years, and we were not able ing process was well beyond our Columns. We cultivated a sta- to replace them. Also by that means. We abandoned this idea. ble of regular columnists to com- time, companies were getting Eventually we decided to dis- ment on a variety of issues. The

38 January 2008/Vol. 51, No. 1 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM In the grand traditions of ACM, there are always people who think we can do a better job.

first was Jon Bentley’s “Program- because the budget was not there departments had left CACM was ming Pearls,” (1983), which to hire the personnel needed to the Publications Plan approved proved to be the CACM’s most fully realize the mission. by Council in 1978. It was not popular column of all time. After A number of our issues and the work of capricious editors, five years, Jon retired from the covers received industry awards. but of top ACM and SIG leader- job, saying he was burned out A recent survey of scientific ship. from the schedule. “Literate Pro- journals confirmed that CACM was tapped to gramming” in 1988 (Chris van is now highly ranked. It has the spirit this revitalization effort. Wyck), “Legally Speaking” in third-highest citation count He spent months gathering feed- 1990 (Pamela Samuelson), across four key computing cate- back from focus groups, study- “Inside Risks” in 1990 (Peter gories: , ing reader surveys, talking with Neumann), and “Viewpoint” in Information Systems, Hardware many individuals, and reviewing 1983. Reader surveys told us this and Architecture, and Theory every aspect of CACM from bot- was the most popular feature in and Methods. As a result of this tom to top. A new CACM plan CACM; the majority of readers increased reputation, the submis- was proposed (see page 44). turned first to the columns sion rate for good articles has It’s the same plan we submit- section. been rising. ted in 1982! Right down to the Design. The redesign was a We believe we achieved our models envisioned for each sec- complete overhaul: new typogra- mission and helped CACM tion. We thought our plan phy, stylistic opening pages to achieve a high stature in the then—developed through a con- articles, illustrations, and profes- community. sensus process—was sound and I sionally designed covers. Our I stepped down in 1992 to am delighted the consensus Fifth Generation Computing chair the Publications Board and today is much the same. Systems cover won an award lead the Digital Project. There is one major difference. (Sept. 1983). In 1990, we moved The current ACM leadership has all graphic design and layout in- WISDOM OF THE AGES agreed to fully fund the plan. house. In the grand traditions of ACM, They will be able to hire all the there are always people who editors they need. No cutting MISSION ACCOMPLISHED think we can do a better job. corners. CACM can now We launched in 1983 with the When David Patterson was become truly great. c mission given us by the ACM president of ACM, many Council: Transform CACM to a researchers told him they magazine style, embodying the thought CACM had never Peter J. Denning ([email protected]) is the director of the Cebrowski Institute for JAM concepts that would be regained its vaunted glory of the Innovation and Information Superiority interesting and useful to mem- 1970s. Patterson set up a com- in the Naval Postgraduate School in bers every month. mittee to review the current Monterey, CA. We conducted regular reader model and propose ways to surveys and focus groups to help recharge its content and scope. us assess how well we were doing; When I first talked with the and we made many adjustments. committee, they were not aware We continued to be very creative that the reason many research © 2008 ACM 0001-0782/08/0100 $5.00

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM January 2008/Vol. 51, No. 1 39

ACM AUTHORS TURNED A.M. TURING WINNERS AND ACM PRESIDENTS*

THE GOTLIEB YEARS Francis Allen (2006) 1962–1964 Nicklaus Wirth (1984) Future Turing Recipients (2002) (1966) (2002) (1967) (2005) John McCarthy (1971) Robert W. Floyd (1978) E.W. Dijkstra (1972) Richard M. Karp (1985) (1974) Ed Feigenbaum (1994) (1975) (1977) Future ACM Presidents (1989) Stuart Zweben (1994–1996) Fernando Corbato (1990) David Patterson (2004–2006) Peter Naur (2005)

Future ACM Presidents THE DENNING YEARS (1960–1962) 1983–1992 George Forsythe (1964–1966) Future Turing Recipients Anthony Oettinger (1966–1968) Robert E. Tarjan (1986) (1968–1970) Jim Gray (1998) John White (1990–1992) Ronald L. Rivest (2002) Adi Shamir (2002) THE LYNN YEARS 1969–March 1973 Future ACM Presidents Future Turing Recipients Stuart Zweben (1994–1996) (1973) Barbara Simons (1998–2000) Frederick P. Brooks (1999) David Patterson (2004–2006) E.F. Codd (1981) C.A.R. Hoare (1980) THE COHEN YEARS Donald E. Knuth (1974) 1992–1996 (1984) Future Turing Recipients (1993) THE ASHENHURST YEARS Frederick P. Brooks (1999) April 1973–1983 Robert E. Kahn (2004) Future Turing Recipients (1992) Future ACM Presidents Dennis M. Ritchie (1983) Barbara Simons (1998–2000) (1983) Maria Klawe (2002–2004) C.A.R. Hoare (1980)

Ronald Rivest (2002) *All works were published prior to (1987) award/office announcements.

40 January 2008/Vol. 51, No. 1 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM