{ \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}}