Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education (FASE) Volume 9 Number 06 (113th Issue) - June 15, 1999 835 subscribers Note: If you have problems with the format of this document, try ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Table of Contents This Month's Topic: Company-Based Certification Programs Upcoming Topics News Items Company-Based SE Certification Bill Fails to Become Law in Texas U.S. and Canadian Licensing Information Available Summary of ICSE 99 BOF on Software Engineering Education MP Visits Novel Teaching Project Calls for Participation ICSE-2000 Software Engineering Education & Training (SEAT) Track CASE Track of 2000 IRMA International Conference Contact and General Information about FASE ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) This Month's Topic: Company-Based Certification Programs The role of company-based software engineering certification programs, as they relate to licensing issues, are of increasing interest, as engineering license boards in various states and countries consider licensing software engineers as Professional Engineers. [See the "Company-Based SE Certification Bill Fails to Become Law in Texas" later in this issue section for an example.] One major example of such a certification program in the U.S. leads to the title "Microsoft Certified System Engineer" (MCSE). Such a program allows for a teenager not yet finished secondary education to call themselves an "engineer", unless the state or country outlaws that practice. Licensing is seen as an alternative to certification; however, the companies in question have invested considerable money into these programs, and wish to see them survive and prosper. For this topic, the FASE readership was invited to agree or disagree with the following statement: Graduates of company-based software engineering certification programs should be allowed to use their certification title (e.g. "Microsoft Certified System Engineer"), even if engineers are licensed in their jurisdiction. The two responses received are below. ###################################################################### From: Bob Lechner In FASE May 1999, Don Bagert commented: The role of company-based software engineering certification programs, as they relate to licensing issues, are of increasing interest, as engineering license boards in various states and countries consider licensing software engineers as Professional Engineers. [See the "Licensing Articles" section for an example.] He asked if company program graduates should be allowed to use their certification title. I agree with this, as long as the certificate title correctly reflects its content. As a life member of IEEE, computer-based systems analyst, teacher of OO SWEng methods and developer of framework tools, I believe these programs fill different roles. Certification in a specialized product line is still IMHO a technician's responsibility (and pride). Although it may be critical to effective implementation, specialized expertise in no way certifies a capability to engineer a robust application from requirements analysis onward, which I hope professional certification does, in some domain. [But this domain should become part of the professional title as well.] Bob Lechner, Professor UMass-Lowell Lowell MA 01854 lechner@cs.uml.edu ###################################################################### From: C & L Whitfield In response to your question below, I have mixed feeling. I am a licenced Professional Engineer in Ontario, Canada. I believe strongly in the need to accomplish 2 things a) the public should not be misled as to the qualifications and competence of individuals to practice professional engineering and to "stamp OK" on designs of equipment and software that has a significant potential for impact on the public welfare (bridges, airplanes, air traffic control systems are a few examples of things that should be designed by competent licenced professionals in much the same way as we expect surgeons to be licenced before we let them operate on us. b) students should not be misled about the possibility that a particular program of study or certification process qualifies them to practice professional engineering. The use of the word engineer in the context of systems engineer or software engineer seems to me to run the risk of failing under the above criteria. Clearly, in my mind whatever an MCSE is certified to do it is NOT by any reasonable criteria legitimate to call it professional engineering. On the other hand, over zealous protection of the word also seems out of line and smacks of elitism and arrogance that is not justified. After all medical Doctors can coexist with Doctors of Philosophy and the public is too often confused or misled by this. So these are my thoughts -- clearly not a "black & white" issue. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Upcoming Topics Aug 1999: Clients, Students, and Projects Guest Editor: Susan A. Mengel Texas Tech University Sep 1999: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (Update) Guest Editors: Robert Dupuis Pierre Bourque Universite du Quebec a Montreal For more information about a particular issue's topic, please contact the corresponding guest editor. Please refer to the article format provided at the end of each issue when making submissions, which are always made directly to the guest editor. Here are some possible topics for future issues: * Accreditation * CASE Tools * Distance Learning * The Relationship between SE and Other Disciplines If you are interested in being a guest editor for any of these topics, or have any suggestions for future topics, please contact me at bagert@ttu.edu. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ News Items ###################################################################### From: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) Company-Based SE Certification Bill Fails to Become Law in Texas Texas Senate Bill (SB) 1353, which would have drastically altered the status quo of software engineering in that state, was passed by the state senate but was not brought up for a vote by the Texas House. (Note: As in most U.S. states, a bill must be passed by both House and Senate, before it can be signed into law by the governor.) The text of the bill, in the form that it passed in the Texas Senate, is below. **************** A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the regulation of the practice of software engineering. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: SECTION 1. The Texas Engineering Practice Act (Article 3271a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes) is amended by adding Section 12.2 to read as follows: Sec. 12.2. REGULATION OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING. (a) The board shall form an advisory committee consisting of persons knowledgeable in software engineering, computer science, consulting engineering, and others. The committee shall: (1) review the rationale for licensing software engineers; (2) develop a definition of software engineering that ensures the protection of public health and safety; (3) consider the status and availability of a licensing examination for software engineers and the merits of licensing software engineers without an examination; and (4) consider other issues relevant to the licensing of software engineers. (b) Until implementation of the recommendations of the advisory committee, the board may not issue a license for software engineering as a separate discipline within the practice of engineering. (c) A person who has completed a program certifying that person as having expertise with regard to the software of a particular software manufacturer may hold that certification forth to the public, provided that any use of the term engineer is accompanied by a disclaimer of equal or greater emphasis that establishes that the person is not licensed by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers. SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 1999. SECTION 3. The importance of this legislation and the crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an emergency and an imperative public necessity that the constitutional rule requiring bills to be read on three several days in each house be suspended, and this rule is hereby suspended. **************** Note: The Texas Engineering Practice Act can be found at http://www.main.org/peboard/law.pdf Proponents of the legislation claimed that the impact of licensed software engineers not been sufficiently considered by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers, and that company-based certification would not impact the health, safety and welfare of the public if certified individuals made it clear that they were not licensed by the state. Opponents of the legislation argued that the proposed Section 12.2(a) had already been done by the Texas Board in late 1997 and early 1998 [see most issues of FASE between December 1997 and July 1998], and that allowing company-based certification would allow for people to call themselves engineers while having somewhat different qualifications than licensed Professional Engineers. (For instance, it is not uncommon for teenagers who have not yet completed their secondary education to become "Microsoft Certified System Engineers".) Testifying in favor of the legislation at a Texas Senate hearing on 22 April was Thomas Ratliff, a lobbyist for Microsoft based in Austin (the state capital). Registering as for the legislation, but not testifying, was Andrew Wise, an Austin-based lobbyist for the American Electronics Association. Testifying against SB 1353 was Gerhardt Schulle Jr., Executive Director of the Texas Society of Professional Professional Engineers. (Note: The Texas Society of Professional Engineers and the Texas Board of Professional Engineers are two different entities. The former is a professional society that is part of the U.S.-based National Society of Professional Engineers, while the latter is the agency which licenses Professional Engineers in Texas.) The bill passed the Senate with only one dissenting vote on 10 May; it was sent to the House the next day. At that point, a letter-writing campaign by a number of licensed Professional Engineers in the state helped convinced sufficient number of legislators that the bill should not be brought up for a vote in the House. Since the bill had not been voted upon by the Texas House by the time that the legislative session ended on 31 May, and since the state legislature meets in regular session only once every two years, this bill cannot be passed into law until 2001 at the earliest, unless very unusual circumstances occur. More information concerning SB 1353 can be found at the Texas Legislature web site: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/ ###################################################################### From: Don Bagert (Academic/Misc Editor) U.S. and Canadian Licensing Information Available This is from "NSPE Update" (published electronically by the National Society for Professional Engineers) for June 2, 1999: "Do you need to find the engineering licensure requirements for a particular state, U.S. territory, or Canadian province? Are you wondering whether that other jurisdiction will accept your current license via reciprocity or comity? You can find out the answers to these and scores of other licensure-related questions by consulting NSPE's new and expanded "Engineering Licensure Laws," now available both in reference manual form and through immediate electronic download of individual summaries on the NSPE Web site, www.nspe.org (under the "Licensure" area)." ###################################################################### From: Nancy R. Mead Summary of ICSE 99 BOF on Software Engineering Education At this year's ICSE in LA, there was a BOF on software engineering education, chaired by Nancy Mead. There were around 20 participants. We ranked the following questions in terms of interest, and managed to get through 3 of them in the allotted time. There was a lively discussion and many different viewpoints. There were many responses beyond those included, but some of the specific responses are included below. ICSE Birds-of-a-feather (BOF) Questions 1) Is there really a discipline of software engineering on which to base education? *** Ranked 3rd - responded to by Don Bagert, Tom Hilburn, Colin Tully, and David Budgen Tom Hilburn responded: Tom agreed with Don's idea that the more important issue is that there is a general perception that there is an SE discipline and in a sense "perception becomes reality". Tom suggested that more traditional disciplines (e.g., civil eng. and mechanical eng.) were not recognized as a "discipline" in their early development, but with the advancement of engineering concepts, methods, and tools these engineering fields became recognized disciplines (see Mary Shaw's article in November 1990, IEEE Software on the SE discipline). 2) What part of software engineering education is effectively delivered as part of a university education, and what part is best left to industry training or on the job experience? *** Ranked 3rd - Jan van Amstel was to respond but we ran out of time. He has slides that he is willing to share, but they are not quite on the mark without the discussion that was to go with them. 3) What part of software engineering education is best reserved for graduate study and what should be included in undergraduate study? *** Ranked 1st - responded to by Tom Hilburn, Bashar Nuseibeh, Bruce Schaefer, Maretta Holden Bashar Nuseibeh responded: My comment at the BOF meeting was that so-called 'sandwich degrees', in which students spend (the middle) part of their degree working in industry, can make software engineering education more useful and relevant at the undergraduate level. A number of such courses exist in the UK - at Imperial College for example, SE undergraduates spend the latter 6 months in their third year in an industrial placement, after which they are taught some of the more advanced software engineering topics. Bruce Schaefer responded: We should work towards a standard curriculum for a BS in Software Engineering. A subset of SE process topics should be included -- limited to what someone with no experience will be able to understand but providing models that will allow graduates to identify issues and acquire new knowledge through later experience and graduate courses. In addition to process topics, include traditional computer science topics but teach them from an engineering perspective -- see "Software Engineering Programs are not Computer Science Programs" by David Parnas. Place a heavy emphasis on design principles, methods, and tools. Graduate SE curricula should build on this base. They should provide advanced education for those who want to specialize in software quality or project manager but also provide tracks for specialists in operating systems, databases, etc. As with the BSSE courses, graduate SE topics should be taught as engineering disciplines rather than as research areas. For those who already have a bachelor's degree in other than SE, provide bridge courses that prepare them for graduate SE study. Tom Hilburn responded: Tom opened with some general statements about the state of SE education. Only about 20+ SE master programs and a handful of start-up undergraduate SEs in the USA - Europe and Australia seem to have more programs and interest in undergraduate SE education. Several masters programs require or expect industrial experience in order to be admitted to graduate SE work (e.g., CMU). Many of the topics and courses in graduate programs could easily migrate to undergraduate programs. This reminds me of many of the early MS programs in CS that were more bridge programs from other disciplines to CS. Much of the content of these programs is now part of the core in undergraduate CS programs. Also, many employers of our undergraduates in computing now desire/expect that they have some familiarity with and understanding of SE practices (e.g., front-end part of software life cycle (requirements & high-level design), working in teams, professional attitude, software processes, testing, etc.). Most of the graduates of computing programs go to industry and work as software developers; hence, there is clear need for undergraduates programs in SE. Increasing the number of undergraduate SE programs, would allow graduate programs to focus on two types of programs - bridge programs for migration from other engineering disciplines and research into SE theory and practice. 4) Should part of the software engineering discipline be considered science and other parts engineering? *** Ranked 7th 5) How can we integrate people issues such as Human Factors into SE? *** Ranked 4th 6) What empirical evidence is there to support what we teach in software engineering as good practice? How can we systematically develop empirical evidence? *** Ranked 2nd - responded to by David Budgen, Tim Lethbridge, Maretta Holden, Don Bagert, and Colin Tully Tim Lethbridge: I said three things in response to this: Firstly there is a community within the software engineering community that focuses on empirical studies. The community has a journal (Empirical Studies of Software Engineering) and an annual workshop (WESS: Workshop on Empirical Studies of Software) that is held at ICSM. The more people that join this community, the better we will be able to validate what we teach. Secondly, the Human Computer Interaction community serves as an example of how empirical work can be conducted. At least when we are teaching user interface design in software engineering courses, we have solid empirical evidence for much of what we teach. Thirdly, The surveys I conducted of software engineering researchers (http://www.site.uottawa.ca/~tcl/edrel/) provide some empirical evidence about *what* we should teach since they tell us what proves useful or not to practitioners. 7) Should software engineers be licensed as Professional Engineers (PEs) in those countries which do so? *** Ranked 5th 8) Should software engineering higher education degree programs be accredited by engineering accreditation boards? *** Ranked 6th ###################################################################### From: Mike Holcombe MP Visits Novel Teaching Project Richard Allen M.P. and Chair of the House of Commons I.T. Committee visited the HEFCE Fund for the Development of Teaching Project in the Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield on 14th May where he met some of the project team and students who were able to demonstrate their work and discuss the unique software engineering teaching that is being carried out in the Department. A University press release is on: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Calls for Participation ###################################################################### From: Bashar Nuseibeh ICSE-2000 Software Engineering Education & Training (SEAT) Track (http://www.ul.ie/~icse2000/) Call for Contributions The education and training of software engineers is crucial to the success of the Software Engineering discipline in the new millennium. The last 30 or so years have seen the discipline develop and change dramatically, leading to changes in curricula and teaching methods adopted by schools, universities and software development organisations. New technologies have made computer-aided learning and teaching a reality, and the internet has provided an infrastructure for distance education and training. More recently, professional issues such as accreditation, certification and the ethics of software engineering practice have become the subject of increasing interest and concern. ICSE-2000 will provide a dedicated track for bringing together software engineering educators, trainers and students, in a forum that will encourage discussion, presentation and demonstration of novel tools and methods for software engineering education and training. The track will run throughout the ICSE-2000 week, and will comprise a number of coordinated events, for which contributions are solicited. The organised events will include a doctoral workshop, teaching demos, teaching panels and research paper presentations during the conference. Doctoral Workshop Date: 6 June 2000 Submission deadline: 25 February 2000 This small, one-day workshop is a forum for graduate students to present and discuss their dissertation research objectives, approaches, and preliminary results. The workshop aims to broaden the perspectives and improve the research skills of new entrants to the software engineering community. Students will receive guidance and feedback on all aspects of their research from established researchers and the other graduate student attendees. Workshop attendance is by invitation only based on submitted papers. Student advisors will not be permitted to attend. The workshop chairs will report back to the ICSE-2000 conference at a panel session later in the week. A summary of the workshop programme and contributions will appear in the conference proceedings. For submissions or more information, please contact the workshop chairs, or visit the conference website. Chairs: Jeff Magee (Imperial College, UK); Email: jnm@doc.ic.ac.uk Mauro Pezze (Politecnico di Milan, Italy); Email: pezze@elet.polimi.it Committee: Laura Dillon, Michigan State University (USA) Anthony Finkelstein, University College London (UK) Alfonso Fuggetta, Politecnico di Milano (Italy) Jeff Kramer, Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine (UK) Daniel Le Metayer, INRIA/IRISA (France) Lee Osterweil, University of Massachusetts (USA) David Rosenblum, University of California Irvine (USA) Tetsuo Tamai, University of Tokyo (Japan) Teaching Demonstrations Date: 7-9 June 2000 Submission deadline: 25 February 2000 This new track comprises a number of formal tool demonstration sessions, presenting innovative computer-supported approaches for enabling new forms of software engineering teaching and learning. The tools presented must demonstrate novel research or technology for preparing and/or delivering software engineering education and training material. Recent advances in Integrated Computer-Based Teaching (ICT), in particular multimedia and Internet technology, have provided new opportunities for overcoming some inherent difficulties in teaching software engineering. This has led to new approaches for organising and mediating expert knowledge, and helping students learn by observation, interaction, and experimentation. The track solicits proposals for demonstrations of innovative systems, methodologies or approaches to software engineering teaching and learning. Tools are selected for presentation at the conference based on these proposals and associated tool descriptions. Each demonstration will last for 30 minutes, and an accompanying description will appear in the conference proceedings. Papers based on the best teaching demos will be considered for publication in a special issue of the Journal of Interactive Media in Education. For detailed submission information, please contact the track chair, or visit the conference website. Chair: Michael Goedicke (University of Essen, Germany); Email: goedicke@informatik.uni-essen.de Programme Committee: Bernd Kraemer, FernUniversity Hagen (Germany) Tamara Sumner, University of Colorado at Boulder (USA) Steve Fickas, University of Oregon (USA) Heinz Schmidt, Monash University (Australia) Education Panels Date: 7-9 June 2000 Submission deadline: 11 November 1999 This sub-track will comprise a series of panels to discuss current open issues in software engineering education and training. Topics of interest include software engineering curricula, educational technology, lifelong learning (continued professional development), certification, licensing and more. For submission of panel proposals or further information please contact one of the track co-chairs. Chairs: Nancy Mead (Software Engineering Institute, USA); Email: nrm@sei.cmu.edu Hossein Saiedian (University of Nebraska at Omaha, USA); Email: hossein@csalpha.unomaha.edu Research (technical) Papers Date: 7-9 June 2000 Submission deadline: 11 November 1999 ICSE-2000 welcomes submissions of papers describing novel research in software engineering education and training. Submissions will be reviewed by the conference programme committee, and accepted papers will be presented during research paper sessions at the conference. Submissions should be marked as 'SEAT' contributions, but should be submitted, like other research papers, to the programme co-chairs directly. Accepted papers will also be published in the conference proceedings. For more information regarding research paper submissions, please contact programme co-chairs, SEAT track chair, or visit the conference website. Chairs: Mehdi Jazayeri (Technical University of Vienna, Austria); Email: jazayeri@infosys.tuwien.ac.at Alex Wolf (University of Colorado, USA); Email: alw@cs.colorado.edu The ICSE-2000 SEAT programme promises to provide an exciting collection of coordinated events in the area of software engineering education and training. For more information about SEAT, please contact: Bashar Nuseibeh (SEAT Chair) Department of Computing , Imperial College, London SW7 2BZ, UK Email: ban@doc.ic.ac.uk; Fax: +44-171-581 8024 ###################################################################### From: Sal Valenti CALL FOR PAPERS Computer-Aided Software Engineering Track of 2000 Information Resources Management Association International Conference May 21-24,2000 Anchorage Hilton Hotel Anchorage, Alaska, USA ----------------------------------------------------------------- TRACK CHAIR ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sal Valenti University of Ancona Italy Tel: +39 071 2204824 Fax: +39 071 2204474 email: valenti@inform.unian.it ------------------------------------------------------------------ TRACK COVERAGE ------------------------------------------------------------------ Over the last four decades, computer systems have required increasingly complex software development and maintenance support. The marriage of software engineering, the application of engineering principles to produce economical and reliable software, to software development tools and methods promised to simplify software development while improving accuracy and speed. CASE tools have evolved from frontend CASE that use computer graphics to represent concepts to back-end CASE that generate code from design specifications to integrated CASE that automate the entire system through code, database generation and testing). The CASE tool track addresses such issues as: What will and should be the next stage? Is a monolithic I-CASE methodology the best way to develop all information systems, or should we direct our efforts toward developing a variety of tools and methods, selecting for each stage the tool that best meets the application requirements? ------------------------------------------------------------------ TOPICS ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Computer-Aided Software Engineering Track encourages the submission of quality papers and panel and workshop proposals dealing with (but not limited to) the following topics: * Front-End and Back-End CASE * Integrated CASE * Organizational Issues in Adoption of CASE Tools * Object-oriented CASE * Structured CASE * CASE Repositories * Software Development Using CASE Tools * Intelligent CASE Tools * Selecting a CASE Tool * CASE Tool Standards * CASE Tools and Computer-Supported Collaborative Work * CASE Tools and Knowledge-Based Software Engineering * CASE Tools and Education * CASE Tools and Software Metrics * Managing CASE Tool Projects * CASE Tool Product Experience, Case Studies, and Research Issues ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBMISSION CATEGORIES AND GUIDELINES ------------------------------------------------------------------ FULL LENGTH SUBMISSIONS Those individuals interested may submit a full length (not to exceed 4000 words), original, and previously unpublished, conceptual or empirical research manuscript for review and decision. Accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings in their entirety or as a 1500-2000 word mini-paper, as recommended by the reviewers. High quality papers will be considered for further review and possible inclusion in the Information Resources Management Journal, Journal of End User Computing, Journal of Database Management, or Journal of Global Information Management. In addition, the best paper in terms of quality and suitability to the theme of the conference will be awarded the "Best Paper" Award. RESEARCH-IN-PROGRESS SUBMISSIONS Those individuals interested may submit research-in-progress proposals (abstracts) or a summary of tentative results of the study to date in 500-1000 words by October 8, 1999. Authors of accepted proposals are asked to forward a 1500-2000 words paper by January 14, 2000 for inclusion in the conference proceedings. PANEL, WORKSHOP, TUTORIAL, AND SYMPOSIUM SUBMISSIONS Individuals interested in conducting a panel, workshop, symposium or tutorial dealing with technological, managerial, professional, teaching, societal, national or international issues of information technology management are invited to submit a 500-1000 word proposal covering the objectives, issues to be covered, and the names/addresses of any other panel, workshop, tutorial/symposium members. Method of presentation is at the submitter's discretion, however the submitter has the responsibility for providing his/her own participants (such as panel members). All accepted proposals will appear in the conference proceedings. (Note: All panel, workshop, tutorial/symposium members must register and pay for the conference. Panel presenters should know that during the conference, an overhead projector and screen will be provided by the association for each presentation. Any additional equipment needed for the panel, workshop, tutorial or symposium is at the discretion of the presenter and it will be his or her responsibility to provide the extra equipment. ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBMISSION GUIDELINES ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Manuscript must not exceed 4000 words for full length submissions; 500-1000 words for research-in-progress summary/proposal; and 500-1000 words for panel, workshop, tutorial and symposium proposals. 2. Must be accompanied by a separate cover letter with every author(s) name, address, phone & fax numbers, e-mail, full affiliation and the track to which it is submitted. All correspondence will be sent to the first author unless otherwise specified. 3. Submitted papers must not currently be under review by any other publication or conference. 4. Submitters must provide their e-mail address where the acknowledgment will be forwarded. 5. The number of submissions by an author (including joint authorship) is limited to a maximum of two submissions. 6. All submissions should be submitted electronically in either MS Word '97 or rich text format (RTF). (Note: If you do not receive an e-mail acknowledgment one week after your electronic submissions, please contact the program chair.) Authors of accepted manuscripts and proposals will be asked to provide the final copy of the submission in MS Word '97 or RTF format electronically. Authors of accepted papers (at least one person) must register and attend the conference. ----------------------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT DATES ----------------------------------------------------------------- Submission Deadline: October 8, 1999 Notification of Acceptance/Rejection: November 19, 1999 Final Submission Due: January 14, 2000 Early Registration Ends: April 3, 2000 Conference Period: May 21-24, 2000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONFERENCE SITE ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anchorage is a cosmopolitan city of glass-walled high-rises, four-diamond hotels and world-class entertainment, surrounded by North America's greatest wilderness show. Visitors will find a wide variety of big-city amenities with small-town friendliness. Dining and shopping are easy with more than 300 places to eat and drink, plus hundreds of shops and dozens of enclosed malls including some factory outlets. Sculpted by glaciers and seas, the Anchorage area is a wonderland of majestic fjords and forested valleys, where the Northern Lights ripple and shimmer in the sky and the terrain is varied enough to provide adventures for the hearty and the not-so-hearty. Send all inquiries and submissions to: Mehdi Khosrowpour, program chair 2000 IRMA International Conference E-mail: mehdi@irma-international.org For complete conference information, visit the IRMA Web Site at http://www.irma-international.org ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Contact and General Information about FASE The Forum for Advancing Software engineering Education (FASE) is published on the 15th of each month by the FASE editorial board. Send newsletter articles to one of the editors, preferably by category: Articles pertinent to corporate and government training to Kathy Beckman ; Academic education, and all other categories to Don Bagert . If the article for a FASE topic where there is a guest editor, the submission should instead be to that person. Items must be submitted by the 8th of the month in order to be considered for inclusion in that month's issue. Also, please see the submission guidelines immediately below. FASE submission format guidelines: All submissions must be in ASCII format, and contain no more than 70 characters per line (71 including the new line character). This 70-character/line format must 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). [NEW SUBSCRIBE/UNSCRIBE INFORMATION - September 15, 1998] Everyone that is receiving this is on the FASE mailing list. If you wish to leave this list, write to and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: unsubscribe fase To rejoin (or have someone else join) the FASE mailing list, write to subscribe fase For instance, if your name is Jane Smith, write: subscribe fase Jane Smith But what if you have something that you want to share with everyone else, before the next issue? For more real-time discussion, there is the FASE-TALK discussion list. It is our hope that it will be to FASE readers what the SIGCSE.members listserv is to that group. (For those of you that don't know, SIGCSE is the ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education.) To subscribe to the FASE-TALK list, write to and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write: subscribe fase-talk For instance, if your name is Jane Smith, write: subscribe fase-talk Jane Smith Please try to limit FASE-TALK to discussion items related to software engineering education and training; CFPs and other such items can still be submitted to the editor for inclusion into FASE. Anyone that belongs to the FASE-TALK mailing list can post to it. FASE-TALK is also used by the editors for "breaking stories" i.e. news that we feel that you would want to hear about before the next issue of FASE comes out. (We do this sparingly, though.) As always, there is no cost for subscribing to either FASE or FASE-TALK! Back issues (dating from the very first issue) can be found on the web (with each Table of Contents) at or through ftp at . The FASE Staff: Don Bagert, P.E. -- Academic/Misc Editor, ListMaster, and Archivist Dept. of Computer Science 8th and Boston Texas Tech University Lubbock TX 79409-3104 USA Phone: 806-742-1189 Fax: 806-742-3519 Email: bagert@ttu.edu Kathy Beckman -- Corporate/Government Editor Computer Data Systems One Curie Ct. Rockville MD 20850 USA Phone: 301-921-7027 Fax: 301-921-1004 Email: Kathy.Beckman@cdsi.com Laurie Werth -- Advisory Committee Taylor Hall 2.124 University of Texas at Austin Austin TX 78712 USA Phone: 512-471-9535 Fax: 512-471-8885 Email: lwerth@cs.utexas.edu Nancy Mead -- Advisory Committee Software Engineering Institute 5000 Forbes Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA Phone: 412-268-5756 Fax: 412-268-5758 Email: nrm@sei.cmu.edu