The occasion of a retiring presidential address seems like a time to look back, take stock and perhaps look ahead.

Institutionally, it was an honor to serve as President of the Association and I want to thank my teachers and predecessors for guidance and advice and my fellow officers and our publisher for their work and support. To all of the members who answered my calls to chair or serve on this or that committee, I offer my thanks as well. Your work was both needed and appreciated.

A major component of the efforts of the Association is devoted to our publications. My first important task as President was to deal with the need to reorganize the reviews section of the JSL and eventually to move it to the BSL. Appropriately enough, my first administrative job for the Association, some thirty years ago, was to serve on a committee to plan a reorganization of the reviews. I thank all those who helped with this transition and who took over the task of running the new reviews section. I hope that it will be another thirty years before further major changes are needed in this area and that someone else will be making them.

It is time for a new paper about open questions in the currently very active area of randomness and computability. Ambos-Spies and Kučera presented such a paper in 1999 [1]. All the question in it have been solved, except for one: is KL-randomness different from Martin-Löf randomness? This question is discussed in Section 6.

Not all the questions are necessarily hard—some simply have not been tried seriously. When we think a question is a major one, and therefore likely to be hard, we indicate this by the symbol ▶, the criterion being that it is of considerable interest and has been tried by a number of researchers. Some questions are close contenders here; these are marked by ▷. With few exceptions, the questions are precise. They mostly have a yes/no answer. However, there are often more general questions of an intuitive or even philosophical nature behind. We give an outline, indicating the more general questions.

All sets will be sets of natural numbers, unless otherwise stated. These sets are identified with infinite strings over {0, 1}. Other terms used in the literature are sequence and real.

We report on some recent work centered on attempts to understand when one set is more random than another. We look at various methods of calibration by initial segment complexity, such as those introduced by Solovay [125], Downey, Hirschfeldt, and Nies [39], Downey, Hirschfeldt, and LaForte [36], and Downey [31]; as well as other methods such as lowness notions of Kučera and Terwijn [71], Terwijn and Zambella [133], Nies [101, 100], and Downey, Griffiths, and Reid [34]; higher level randomness notions going back to the work of Kurtz [73], Kautz [61], and Solovay [125]; and other calibrations of randomness based on definitions along the lines of Schnorr [117].

These notions have complex interrelationships, and connections to classical notions from computability theory such as relative computability and enumerability. Computability figures in obvious ways in definitions of effective randomness, but there are also applications of notions related to randomness in computability theory. For instance, an exciting by-product of the program we describe is a more-or-less natural requirement-free solution to Post's Problem, much along the lines of the Dekker deficiency set.