On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 17:01 -0500, G. Matthew Rice wrote: > Not quite accurate. In 2001, MS agreed to advise their MCSEs in Canada not > to use the full wording nor to call themselvese 'engineers'. In 2002, they > changed their mind. > I'm not certain where this matter stands right now. > Googling hasn't proved to be very helpful.
I'm sure part of the problem was the same as it was for the NSPE in New England. "We don't tell you how to build bridges so don't tell us how to build networks." Now to the common lay person, that seems accurate. And even I, myself, complain the NSPE and state BoPEs are sometimes too "civil engineering" focused, and even many "electrical engineers" scoff as software engineering as a discipline. But stepping back and recognizing the obvious of the truth helps. There is a _huge_ difference between "designing a bridge" and merely "installing it." The engineer has to derive countless engineering mechanics, guarantee the bridge won't collapse under certain conditions. Engineering technologists then oversee its installation by technicians, as well a provide feedback to and work with the designing engineers. Same deal in networking. There is a _huge_ difference between "design a network" and "installing" it. The engineers have to design network ASICs and equipment which requires extensive understanding of EMF, signals and FCC regulations to guarantee performance as well as against interference. Engineering technologists then oversee actual network installation by technicians, as well as provide feedback to and work with the designing engineers. There are various analogies to software as well. The *KEY* is to recognize the _distinct_ differences between engineers (who are _not_ practical for most day-to-day operations), engineering technologists (almost a designing engineer on one hand, and really a super-technician on another) and then technicians. CNEs and MCSEs are clearly _technicians_ and, maybe, engineering technologists at best. They do *NOT* have the first understanding of networking electronics, software engineering principles and they are utterly devoid of questions on statues and other considerations "of and for the public trust." And that's what it's about, "of and for the public trust." "Civil engineers" used to snub the same of "environmental engineers" for the longest time. They didn't consider it a "real engineering" either, just like many do of "software engineering." But thank God the '70s happened, and that's when everything started to change. Because instead of just "whistle blowing," which is what happened, the NSPEs and BoPEs starting realizing that once you start not only A) start licensing Environmental Engineers, but B) put them in the middle of business and technical decisions, you get C) people directly in the process at companies who can say, "no, if I allow you to do this, I will be _criminally_negligent_." Let me repeat that, _criminally_ negligent -- not just "civilly." The engineer -- _separate_ from whatever his employer did -- would be held _accountable_ "to and for the public trust." It was no longer about "oh, I better do what my companies says or I'll lose my job." It was about _peers_ standing up against corporate decisions that were _bad_ about the environment. Companies couldn't just "fire" that engineer and bring in another, because the next engineer was _also_ bound by the same laws and statues. All of the sudden, you had a _swift_ change in the environmental practices of US corporations _overnight_. Instead of "hiding" and "whistle blowing" of environmental disasters "after the fact" (making them rather pointless), you now had licensed engineers -- accountable "to and for the public trust" -- involved in the process, as it was happening, ensuring that boards and other decisions makers _knew_ what statues were in effect, and they would enforce _regardless_ of their job, and they'd run into the same attitude with the next engineer they brought in. Now what does this have to do with Software Engineering? Everything! I have been in banking environments for the majority of my last 5.5 years. And I can tell you we very much _need_ this type of "authority." I have brought up countless, federal legislation in order to _prevent_ great violations of the public trust, to protect the security of our financial systems, and many times, I was commended. And guess what? They still went back and went utterly _against_ the federal laws. Why? Because of "cost" or "support" or some other non-sense. Save a few thousand bucks by putting ATMs and financial backends on the regular PC network. Save a few tens of thousands by hiring developers who don't know the first thing about object modeling and privilege separation in code. Code audit after network audit after countless other audit, I was right, told I was right, said they'd change, and then they'd utterly ignore it. We need network and software engineering and technology statues. Now! We need licensed software engineers and software engineering technologists. We need to _stop_ the gross violations of countless federal laws in the industry, and that begins by _empowering_ and _involving_ not just "traditional engineers" like myself, but _engaging_ the IT industry of clearly "engineering technologists" and "technicians." If the NSPE and state BoPEs want to "serve the public trust," they need to get their "heads out of the sand" and realize they could help _lead_ and help _meet_ the "real needs" of the public trust in the IT industry. I've had this discussion with older environmental engineers who were around for the '70s and their arguments back then were the _exact_same_ as mine! We don't need more "federal IT legislation." That did _nothing_ for environmental engineering in the '70s, just like it's doing _nothing_ for the IT industry in the 21st century. That only gives you "whistle blowing" often "after the fact" and does _nothing_ to change the unscrupulous actions of the industry. What we need are _licensed_ software engineers, software engineering technologists and, via industry alliances with more technical organizations, NSPE/BoPE recognized technical certification programs. People "on-the-ground," infiltrated into organizations and peers writing statues that far better represent the _real_needs_ "of and for the public trust" than what legislators in Congress -- most utterly ignorant of technology and network security -- can do with yet more laws. -- Bryan J. Smith P.S. By "state BoPEs," I'm referring to the US state agencies. Replace with your locale's equivalent, governing or overseeing agency. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
