A New Unified Mathematical Society
Frequently Asked Questions
I feel very concerned that the New Society might rapidly diminish the small grants that I regard as one of the most important aspects of the LMS. Why should this not happen?
Doesn’t their history show that the societies have distinct roles, and that they should stick to what they do best?
What evidence do you have from other countries that combining two mathematical societies is beneficial?
Why is the Charity Commission mentioned so frequently in the current discussions?
Why is the Report so lacking in vision and so heavy on detail?
Large societies can be very remote from their members. Have you taken account of this problem?
What is envisaged for the regional and branch structures, and how does that relate to what the IMA and LMS offer at present?
Will the LMS’s concession for long-standing members, that membership is free after 35 years of continuous membership, continue?
If the creation of a new society implies the elimination of duplication in the committee structure and some administrative tasks why is there no proposal to reduce the size of the administration of the New Society?
Why did the Report not propose a more ambitious plan to unify all the mathematical societies, including the Royal Statistical Society?
We are told that the CMS represents the views of the mathematical community to the Government very effectively. If this is so, why is a merger needed?
Why are the buildings in both Southend and London being retained? Surely only one is needed?
What is the process for members to vote in the referendum and the Society Meetings, and what majorities are required in order for the plans for a merger to go ahead?
The LMS currently has a Computer Science Committee but this is not mentioned in the proposal. Will the New Society include such areas as this?
In the USA, SIAM, for the applications of mathematics and the AMS, for pure mathematics, coexist beneficially; the counterparts in the UK are surely the IMA and the LMS so why do we need to unite them here?
What is the idea of having Fellows in the new mathematics society and Chartered Mathematicians? The LMS has managed perfectly well without Fellows for almost 150 years.
You claim that it should be possible to increase the number of members of the joint society very substantially within five years. What evidence do you have that this is a plausible goal?