Hot Diggety! Joseph Kern was rumored to have written: > 1. Is there anything that we can do to stop such a change? > 2. Is there anything that we can do to embrace such a change? > 3. Why am I wrong in thinking that this is even an issue? > > Please note that I am not talking about certification. I am talking > about creating a License to Practice.
It's usually not really that much of a big deal in actual practice, TBH. Just some more i's to dot and t's to cross, paperwork-wise, and some token effort to maintain currency. Consider the historical context behind some certifications -- they were designed that way to protect the general public for general safety reasons or to better protect against financial fraud. (Or to raise local town revenue...) Common examples includes civil engineering, other forms of engineering, brokerage, amongst a great many other things. Even to fly an airplane -- a small one -- requires professional training and licensing examination (oral, written, *and* flying). With the rise of computers as a safety-critical and business mission-critical aspect permeating our lives in (often) many invisible forms in the 21st century, licensing / certification is but a question of 'when?' rather than 'if'. Society is increasingly moving its basic infrastructure under computer control, which implies risk, future colossal meltdown and inquiry, and eventual push for regulatory certification at some point. Now, had the question been: 'How do we develop a certification program that would be accepted by regulatory authorities?' -- answer would be 'Well, the devil's in the details.' :-) (Witness past LOPSA threads as well as USENIX/SAGE ;login issues on this very topic.) _Defining_ certification requirements for a field as broad as this is extremely difficult. Currently, we've managed to get a handle on specific specialities, but not much in way of general stuff. We are in the fortunate position of being able to define certification requirements now if we collectively act in the near future, versus letting politicians define it for us later on, as a reactionary measure to some tragedy, if we wait too long. There is precedent for this -- just look at how the early aviators operated. Initially, no regulation, but regulations were increasingly tacked on in response to various accidents. Same with automobile driving. The earliest drivers must have chafed at licensing / certification requirements despite having been driving for a while but by that point, it was here to stay and they had to adapt, deal with it, and move on. Times are a-changin'... if we want to remain relevant and employed, we'll have to adapt -- no two ways about it. -Dan P.S. Little known tidbit: Orville Wright (of aviation's Wright Brothers fame) was offered pilot license number 1 by a precedessor department to the FAA in 1927, some 24 years after he first flew heavier-than-air engine-powered reliably controlled aircraft. (His brother, Wilbur, had passed away some years earlier, so he wasn't considered for a license.) He politely declined the honor and so the first issued pilot license went to someone else, William MacCracken, Jr. http://avstop.com/history/pilot_lic/first_pilots_and_mechanic_licens.htm _______________________________________________ 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/
