Computational thinking, a K–12 education movement begun in 2006, has defined a curriculum to teach basic computing in pre-college schools. It has been dramatically more successful than prior computer literacy or fluency movements at convincing K–12 school teachers and boards to adopt a computer curriculum. Learning problem-solving with algorithms is seen widely as valuable for students. Hundreds of CT initiatives have blossomed around the world. By 2010, the movement settled on a definition of CT that can be paraphrased as "Designing computations that get computers to do jobs for us."

Computing professionals' actions change the world. To act responsibly, they should reflect upon the wider impacts of their work, consistently supporting the public good. The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct ("the Code") expresses the conscience of the profession. The Code is designed to inspire and guide the ethical conduct of all computing professionals, including current and aspiring practitioners, instructors, students, influencers, and anyone who uses computing technology in an impactful way. Additionally, the Code serves as a basis for remediation when violations occur. The Code includes principles formulated as statements of responsibility, based on the understanding that the public good is always the primary consideration. Each principle is supplemented by guidelines, which provide explanations to assist computing professionals in understanding and applying the principle.

The proposed changes to the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, as discussed by Don Gotterbarn et al. in "ACM Code of Ethics: A Guide for Positive Action"1 (Digital Edition, Jan. 2018), are generally misguided and should be rejected by the ACM membership. The changes attempt to, for example, create real obligations on members to enforce hiring quotas/priorities with debatable efficacy while ACM members are neither HR specialists nor psychologists; create "safe spaces for all people," a counterproductive concept causing problems in a number of universities; counter harassment while not being lawyers or police officers; enforce privacy while not being lawyers; ensure "the public good" while not being elected leaders; encourage acceptance of "social responsibilities" while not defining them or being elected leaders or those charged with implementing government policy; and monitor computer systems integrated into society for "fair access" while not being lawyers or part of the C-suite. ACM is a computing society, not a society of activists for social justice, community organizers, lawyers, police officers, or MBAs. The proposed changes add nothing related specifically to computing and far too much related to these other fields, and also fail to address, in any significant new way, probably the greatest ethical hole in computing today--security and hacking. If the proposed revised Code is ever submitted to a vote by the membership, I will be voting against it and urge other members to do so as well.

The notion of what constitutes a profession has been studied extensively through exploration of the attributes of the activities, roles, and community that lead to their rise, definition, and how they achieve importance and influence and society.1 Common among these attributes are a deep technical expertise, an essential, valued, societal contribution, and the need to adhere to high ethical and technical standards. Computing exhibits all of the attributes of a profession. The compounding of this continued and accelerating advance give rise to a deep technical expertise. Algorithms and systems behavioral and internal complexity are peers to the greatest complexities humanity has known in biology, society, and the universe. Computing's evident importance to society is deep and growing--sophisticated collection and information processing underpins decision-making, logistics, and optimization industry and commerce.

For the first time since 1992, the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (the Code) is being updated. The Code Update Task Force in conjunction with the Committee on Professional Ethics is seeking advice from ACM members on the update. We indicated many of the motivations for changing the Code when we shared Draft 1 of Code 2018 with the ACM membership in the December 2016 issue of CACMb and with others through email and the COPE website (ethics.acm.org). Since December, we have been collecting feedback and are vetting proposed changes. We have seen a broad range of concerns about responsible computing including bullying in social media, cyber security, and autonomous machines making ethically significant decisions. The Task Force appreciates the many serious and thoughtful comments it has received. In response, the Task Force has proposed changes that are reflected in Draft 2 of the Code. There are a number of substantial changes that require some explanation. In this article, we discuss these, and we explain why we did not include other requested changes in Draft 2. We look forward to receiving your comments on these suggested changes and your requests for additional changes as we work on Draft 3 of the Code. We have provided opportunities for your comments and an open discussion of Draft 2 at the ACM Code 2018 Discussion website [http://code2018.acm.org/discuss]. Comments can also be contributed at the COPE website https://ethics.acm.org, and by direct emails to chair@ethics.acm.org. ACM members are part of the computing profession and the ACM's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct should reflect the conscience of the computing profession.

A complete track changes version of Draft 1 showing all additions and deletions to the 1992 Code is available at http://ethics.acm.org/code-2018. Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and full citation on the first page.

The ACM constitution provides that our Association hold a general election in the even-numbered years for the positions of President, Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer, and Members-at-Large. Biographical information and statements of the candidates appear on the following pages (candidates' names appear in random order). In addition to the election of ACM's officers--President, Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer--five Members-at-Large will be elected to serve on ACM Council. Please refer to the instructions posted at https://www.esc-vote.com/acm2016. To access the secure voting site, you will need to enter your email address (the email address associated with your ACM member record) and your unique PIN provided by Election Services Co. Please return your ballot in the enclosed envelope, which must be signed by you on the outside in the space provided. The signed ballot envelope may be inserted into a separate envelope for mailing if you prefer this method. All ballots must be received by no later than 16:00 UTC on 24 May 2016. Validation by the Tellers Committee will take place at 14:00 UTC on 26 May 2016. Vicki Hanson is a Distinguished Professor of Computing at Rochester Institute of Technology, U.S. (since 2013), Professor and Chair of Inclusive Technologies, Computing, University of Dundee, U.K. (since 2009), and an IBM Research Staff Member Emeritus (since 2009). Previously, she was Research Staff Member and Manager, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center (1986–2008), Research Associate, Haskins Laboratories, New Haven, CT (1980–86), and Postdoctoral Fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies (1978–80). Vicki is the ACM Vice President. She also currently serves as a member of the ACM Executive Committee and Council, on the ACM-W Europe Executive Committee, and on the ACM Fellows Awards Committee (Chair, 2015). She is Vice President at Large of ACM SIGCHI and an ACM Distinguished Speaker. She has served on the SIG Governing Board Executive Committee (2005–14; SGB Chair 2010–12), and as Chair of SIGACCESS, where she revitalized the SIG and established a successful annual conference (ASSETS). She co-founded the field's premier archival journal (ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing) and served as Associate Editor of ACM TWEB. She was on the organizing committee for several SIGPLAN OOPSLA conferences, chaired the recent ACM CEO Search Committee, and currently serves on the Royal Society of Edinburgh Fellows committee (since 2013; Convener 2015). She is an ACM Fellow, a Chartered Fellow of the British Computer Society, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and a Senior Member of IEEE.

I appreciated Phillip G. Armour's use of coupled pendulums as an analogy for software project management in his The Business of Software column "The Chaos Machine" (Jan. Chaos is already being exhibited when Armour's machine performs smoothly, in the sense future behavior is inherently unpredictable. What happened when the machine made a hop was not that it "hit a chaos point" but apparently some "resonance disaster" that caused it to exceed the range of operation for which it was built. Moreover, "turbulence" is not an appropriate description in this context, as it describes irregular movement in fluid dynamics. Chaotic behavior does not require three variables.