All, While, I'm not sure this is the ideal issue for us to take a stand on, there are definitely times where we do need to get into the public eye.
I think the perfect kind of public event for LOPSA to be of service to the public would be the likes of a Terry Childs-type occurance. 99% of people out there don't know what a SysAdmin is, what they do, or how we /should/ act, and the news anchors can't responsibly make decisions on their own, because they aren't any more knowledgeable than the lay people. We should have media statements ready, identifying typical responsibilities (as non-technical and as abstract as possible, like 'reliably maintaining the IT infrastructure according to established policies' and so forth), and we should have people on both coasts willing and ready to speak with media folks about what SysAdmins do, and what they /should/ do. I think that the board should determine what, if any, the stance of the organization is and send a broadcast email out to the membership so it knows. The individuals comprising LOPSA are, of course, encouraged to have their own opinions, but when speaking for the group, it's vital to have a unified front so that our message and image can be established and maintained. At least, this is my opinion. --Matt On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > If LOPSA is not going to ever state opinions as an orginization (and I agree > that we do not have a good process to do so now), what are we beyond a club > of people with similar interests? Why should we have paied membership and > not just be a bunch of mailing lists? > > Even if all we intend to do is to provide education, who is to say that the > education we are providing isn't just teaching wanna-be-script-kiddies how > to be real script-kiddies? (no, I don't think that is where we are, but how > can we proove it and agree on what the orginization's money should be spent > on teaching?) > > > we really do need to have a mechansim for agreeing to a statement, etc. I > don't expect that we would get universal agreement on any positions, and > that can cost us members, but the purpose of LOPSA is not to get members. > > From the LOPSA website: > > > The League of Professional System Administrators (LOPSA) is a nonprofit > corporation with members throughout the world. Our mission is to advance the > practice of system administration; to support, recognize, educate, and > encourage its practitioners; and to serve the public through education and > outreach on system administration issues. > > <SNIP> > > The second benefit of joining LOPSA is to advance the profession as a whole. > LOPSA aims to bring a voice to system administrators to society beyond. We > want to educate the public, influence policy both corporate and legislative, > and ensure that our voice is heard. We will reach this goal with outreach, > research into sysadmin issues, and active efforts to expose the media and > public to our viewpoints. > > > the serving the public line of the first paragraph, and the second paragraph > quoted require that we have a way of taking a stand on issues. > > this isn't the first time this has come up, and it won't be the last. > > David Lang > > > On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Aaron McCaleb wrote: > >> I find myself in agreement with John and Ross. And I think think >> there is a wide gulf between what most members think LOPSA _should_ be >> (and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's ideas of what LOPSA >> _should_ be), and what LOPSA actually is. (And I hope this is not >> going to start a flame war...just open a frank discussion...) >> >> LOPSA is simply not positioned to have any dominion over issues >> surrounding WikiLeaks. And there are a number of reasons, some of >> which include a lack of identity, a lack of exclusivity, and a lack of >> mandated and controlled peer review and ratification procedures. >> >> Lack of identity: >> ---------------------- >> Who comprises the LOPSA membership? Is it comprised of system >> administrators? Is it comprised of network engineers? How do you >> know? For all you know, I could be a teenage script-kiddie leeching >> bandwidth from my middle school's poorly secured wireless connection. >> >> There's no application for membership. There's no background check >> nor even a simple (and easily spoofed) reference check. I'm not >> suggesting that members of LOPSA should be vetted in some way. I'm >> only stating the fact that members _aren't_ vetted in any way. So if >> we can't be certain that our membership is soley comprised of industry >> practitioners who have an informed opinion on the issue, how can we >> certify that we, as an organization, are expressing an informed >> opinion on the issue? LOPSA does not have a strong enough identity, >> short of: "Hey! Look! We have 'System Administrators' in our name!", >> to qualify LOPSA as an authoritative source on the practice of system >> administration. >> >> In fact, we can't even certify that we're comprised of professionals! >> (And to re-iterate, I'm _not_ suggesting that members should be >> required to prove their identity either as professional system >> administrators, engineers, researchers or whatever. I'm just trying >> to reconcile the views of what individual members think LOPSA should >> be, in the future, and what it is, now. If we believe it should be >> something more in the future, that's fine. We can plan for how to get >> there. But that still doesn't change the reality of what LOPSA is >> right now.) >> >> Lack of exclusivity: >> --------------------------- >> There is only one qualification for membership to LOPSA: the check >> has to clear. >> >> There is no requirement for minimum education level. There is no >> requirement for minimum years of professional experience. There is no >> requirement for examination. There are no requirements for industry >> or governmental licensure or certification. There are no requirements >> for members to complete any form of continuing education. >> >> The only qualification for membership are either a sufficiently funded >> checking account or a valid credit card with sufficient credit >> remaining. >> >> Again, I'm not suggesting that there should be one or more minimum >> qualifications for membership. I'm only saying that there currently >> is not a minimum qualification for membership, other than the ability >> to pay dues...at least not as far as I am aware. Because we lack this >> guarantee of exclusivity in our member base, then we cannot >> irreproachably claim to offer an _expert_ opinion regarding the >> practice of system administration. >> >> Lack of mandated and controlled peer review and ratification procedures: >> ------------------------------------- >> (At least I'm not aware of any...) >> >> Without a clear process by which any opinion, recommendation or best >> practice can be reviewed with a sufficient comment period, and >> subsequently ratified by the members, we simply do not speak with a >> unified voice. Sure, we might discuss stuff on a mailing list, and >> maybe ask a board member to throw something together and try to push >> an opinion out there. But honestly, that press release wouldn't be >> much different than a bunch of users discussing a current issue in a >> chat forum, maybe on slashdot or 4chan, and then releasing their >> "opinion" to the press. And I fear that it would lack the same >> credibility. Worse, trying to stretch LOPSA's credibility too soon >> might even damage it's _future_ reputation. >> >> >> LOPSA certainly _can_ grow to become an activist organization, if that >> is what all of us want. But there are a lot of wrinkles that need to >> be ironed out. Among other things, with whom will LOPSA be competing? >> ITSM already publishes a body of Best Practices: ITIL. Gartner and >> others already provide research on IT industry trends. CERT, SAN, and >> others already publish alerts and security recommendations. Where is >> the gap that we want LOPSA to cover? >> >> We also need to decide what we, as members, are willing to >> accept...because we still would need to address the lack of identity >> and the lack of exclusivity that might hurt the credibility of any >> opinion or recommendation we were to publish. How do we vet each >> other, and how do we vet new members? Where do we set the bar on whom >> we appoint within our membership to initially contribute and draft >> these opinions and recommendations? What minimum qualifications are >> acceptable for these deliberative bodies? >> >> ...And most importantly, do we _really_ want to go down this path? >> Are we all firmly committed to that goal? Is that really what we >> seek? Or are we more comfortable with knowledge sharing, organizing >> educational seminars to benefit others in our profession, and leave >> the task of attempting to provide some direct benefit for the public >> to other more activist organizations. >> >> I'm really not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I'm just saying I >> really don't think LOPSA is "there", yet...nor am I even certain the >> membership really wants to go down that path, at all. (I believe it >> is going to be a significantly uphill climb for us to find our niche >> and position ourselves, since we are probably arriving at least 10 >> years late to that game.) >> >> But I firmly believe we are not ready to try to voice any sort of >> authoritative, unified opinion, right now. Several of our individual >> members are certainly positioned to offer expert opinions. But LOPSA, >> as a whole, is not. >> >> >> ...But then, I could still be that script-kiddie leeching my >> middle-school's WiFi. So I won't claim that I offer an authoritative >> opinion on what LOPSA is or isn't ready for, either. >> >> --Aaron McCaleb >> >> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 13:25, Trey Darley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Quoth John Jasen [12/09/2010 08:15 PM] : >>>> >>>> I think, on a professional level, that LOPSA should just sit on the >>>> sidelines and watch. >>> >>> While you're sitting on the sidelines watching I would point out (to >>> those not already on NANOG) that this Wikileaks topic has been largely >>> dominating The North American Network Operators Group list for the past >>> couple of weeks. If you're interested in the technical, legal, ethical, >>> and/or political aspects of this case and you're a sysadmin you should >>> probably hop on over to NANOG and start lurking. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> - --Trey >>> >>> ++----------------------------------------------------------------------------++ >>> Trey Darley - Brussels >>> twitter: @treyka >>> >>> ++----------------------------------------------------------------------------++ >>> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? >>> >>> ++----------------------------------------------------------------------------++ >>> >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >>> >>> iEYEARECAAYFAk0BLTQACgkQQXaSM49tivDR8ACeLXDzcBjn2gul5A2RghL/M/ZT >>> ySQAn37NKtddiJLFcHypezOnXDZ3N/w+ >>> =YQ1F >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >>> http://lopsa.org/ >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators >> http://lopsa.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ > > -- LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? COOKIE MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
