Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
person who can measure up to other standards,” but that it would never
be considered a “real” qualifi cation for employment.
94
Another warned
of a “lack of confi dence” in the validity of the CDP exam: “I do not
expect to apply for a CDP or to use the possession of a CDP as a criterion
for employment.”
95
Still another resented a perceived attempt on the part
of the DPMA to foster a “closed shop” mentality, promising to “con-
tinue to regard the CDP holder with suspicion as to motive and qualifi ca-
tion, the level of suspicion being in inverse proportion to the date of the
certifi cate.”
96
In the absence of a strong commitment to the CDP on the
part of employers, many programmers saw little benefi t in participating
in the program. Those who did were increasingly self-selected from the
lowest ranks of the labor pool—individuals for whom the CDP was a
perceived substitute for experience and education.
Professional Societies or Technician Associations?
In spring 1975, on the eve of the annual National Computer Conference,
a small group of the elite leaders of the computing community met in a
nondescript conference room at a Quality Inn in Anaheim, California,
to discuss the future of the computing profession. Similar meetings had
been convened every year for the previous two decades, always with the
intent to address the most pressing issues facing the computing commu-
nity. Although the specifi c composition of the group changed from year
to year, the attendees always represented the highest levels of leadership
in the discipline: award-winning computer scientists, successful business
entrepreneurs, association presidents, and prolifi c authors. The cumula-
tive list of participants reads like a who's who of the computing industry:
Gene Amdahl, Paul Armer, Herbert Bright, Howard Bromberg, Richard
Canning, Herbert Grosch, Fred Gruenberger, Richard Hamming, J.C.R.
Licklider, Daniel McCracken, Anthony Oettinger, Seymour Papert, and
Joseph Weizenbaum, among many others. This particular meeting
included high-ranking representatives from all of the major professional
societies: the ACM, the DPMA, the IEEE Computer Society, and the
ICCP. These societies represented the largest and most infl uential con-
stituent members of the umbrella organization, AFIPS. On the agenda
was a discussion of the role of AFIPS in the professional development of
the discipline.
AFIPS had been founded in 1961 as a society of societies. The immedi-
ate goal had been to provide a U.S. representative to the upcoming
International Federation of Information Processing (IFIP) conference.
