Allegretto IFIPiense Now on CD

The IFIP theme Allegretto IFIPiense received its premier performance on 31 August 1998 in the Vienna Musikverein (where the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra performs the New Year concerts, broadcast worldwide) during the opening ceremony of the 15th World Computer Congress, IFIP Congress ’98. Composed by Prof. Erich Neuwirth (AT) and arranged by Mr. Darryl Burrows (AU), the composition was performed by the ladies’ Wiener Walzertraum orchestra.
The history of the piece intimately involves information technology. Prof. Neuwirth, a mathematician and computer scientist at the University of Vienna (and a prize-winning author of multimedia musical software) composed a theme in the classical style. Deciding that having this theme available in different styles would be useful for the Congress, he solicited help on the Internet, and Mr. Burrows, a former lecturer in mathematics education, now running his own music agency in Brisbane, Australia, responded. Mr. Burrows created versions of the theme in pop, reggae, jazz, and rock. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the story is that the composer and arranger never met, collaborating entirely by means of e-mail and the exchange of MIDI files (Musical Instrument Digital Interface - a standard protocol for communicating with electronic musical instruments).

The delegates at the Congress opening, however, heard only the version arranged for chamber orchestra (by Georg Schmetterer). The versions arranged for electronic instruments provide additional pleasure. The "pop" arrangement, for example, contains clever interpolations of themes from Handel to Haydn to a Scottish melody. These versions can be accessed on the World Wide Web at http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/musicfun/IFIPMusic .
This site provides files in a variety of formats, including MIDI and RealVidio of the performance in the Musikverein. The scores are also available there.
By contacting gabriel@ocg.or.at , those who find the music appealing can purchase a CD (200 Austrian Schillings) containing the various versions played on a synthesizer.
Prof. Neuwirth dedicated the composition to Prof. Heinz Zemanek (AT), recipient of this year’s Isaac L. Auerbach Award (see the article on page 3 of the September 1998 IFIP Newsletter).

Should We Continue to Hold IFIP Congresses?

by Dr. Jack Rosenfeld (US) *

Before there was an IFIP, there was a Congress. It was only after the first Congress, in 1959, that the founders conceived of a federation to organize Congresses, on a triennial basis. Gradually, that organization, IFIP, evolved into the Federation it is today, sponsoring a multitude of technical events around the world annually (68 in 1998). The attendance at the Congresses, now held biennially, has dwindled over the years, reaching a low point of 500-600 for the 1996 Congress in Canberra, but back up to 1200-1300 for the 1998 Congress in Vienna and Budapest.
At virtually every IFIP General Assembly (GA) and Council meeting for the past decade - or more - the issue has been raised concerning whether IFIP should continue to hold Congresses. After each Congress, we have said either, "This Congress was a success, so we should continue to hold them," or "This Congress was unsuccessful, but we have learned how to make the next one better." We have rarely held a reasoned debate on this matter so important for IFIP. In order to open a dialog before we solicit invitations to host the 18th IFIP World Computer Congress in 2004 (the 16th and 17th will be held in Beijing and Montreal, respectively), I present here some of the arguments in favor of and against holding IFIP Congresses. Although I have attempted to be evenhanded, my biases may show. The Executive board certainly does not share my viewpoint.

In Favor

• Congresses have provided substantial income to IFIP, useful in carrying out its other programs; however, this has been less true recently. For example, the 1996 Congress will result in income of only approximately 42 000 Swiss francs over a period of five years. (One fifth was paid in 1998.) This is of the order of magnitude of 10% of the annual IFIP expenses, every other year. The income from the 1998 Congress has yet to be determined; however, no royalties will be paid for the proceedings given to the delegates (but some may be received for post-Congress sales).
• Congresses enable computer specialists to learn the latest developments in their fields.
• Congress proceedings contribute to the body of scientific literature in our field.
• Congresses provide an opportunity for specialists to present their work to their peers. (In one way, this opportunity has been misused. Nine percent of the authors of the papers accepted for presentation at the 1998 Congress did not attend and deliver them. This may indicate that they submitted their papers solely to get credit for publishing in the Congress proceedings.) The quality of the programs lends credit to IFIP.
• Congresses allow delegates to perform networking, meet friends, renew acquaintances, and reestablish contacts every two years.
• They give delegates a chance to enjoy sight-seeing in picturesque places. Although this is said tongue-in-cheek, the relatively low attendance at many sessions of the Vienna/Budapest Congress may indicate that delegates were out seeing the sights, while the low registration in Canberra, not a major tourist locale, may also attest to this argument.

Against

Congresses are extremely expensive in terms of o the time expended by volunteer workers (International Program Committees, Organizing Committees, referees, IFIP Congress Committees, GA members, and others)

• the time spent by authors and other speakers to prepare papers o governmental subsidies
• commercial sponsorships
• cost to participants (registration fees, travel expenses, and accommodation expenses).

The total expense may not be worth the benefits gained.
Many consider the general-purpose Congress a "dinosaur." Our discipline has expanded so greatly over the past 40 years that most specialists want to present their work at conferences attended by peers in their specialities. The recent format for the Congresses as umbrellas for a number of specialized conferences is intended to overcome this barrier. This format provides the specialist the opportunity to attend a specialized conference and learn, at the same time about other disciplines - from keynote speakers and from sessions she or he attends in the other conferences. Economy of scale is also achieved. There are drawbacks in this approach, as well. For example, the registration fee for the Congresses has been much greater than many scientists are used to paying for individual conferences. Also, having the conferences spread over five days is a burden for some. And for those who desire a broad perspective of the entire field, the umbrella approach is unsatisfactory.
A Congress program of low quality or a badly organized Congress creates a negative image of IFIP. (The converse argument was given above.) A Congress with proceedings not published by a recognized publisher, as was the case for the 1998 Congress, results in a nonarchival body of work that is not accessible to the scientific community. (The converse argument was given above.) Members of the IFIP community who wish to contribute to this debate are encouraged to communicate their thoughts to me or their GA representatives.

* Individual Member, editor of IFIP Newsletter

Back to Table of Contents