I'm still puzzled: 1. a professional: paid, output needs to meet client needs 2. client needs vary, require different skill sets and different levels of professionalism. Both have an impact on salary. 3. many professional sysadmins are highly responsible, but have a limited skill set. For me, these are still professionals. 4. irresponsibility is generally linked to competence level and pay grade as well
Clients need to find sysadmins that meet their needs. Intelligence, responsibility, integrity, communication skills, knowledge, experience, and attitude all are important. Some professional sysadmins perform their daily tasks strictly adhering to a protocol, written by more expensive people. Some have an overview of their entire infrastructure and are able to perform highly complex migration projects. Both are professionals, but the first may never talk to someone outside IT. Certification helps to categorize both vertically and horizontally, but they're not enough. Willingness to learn new things and the ability to cope with change, for instance, vary highly. The patience and skill required to communicate effectively with clients and managers on their level and enjoying or hating that. Some do mundane tasks well, some require change and get bored easily. I'll stick with 1 for now: a professional is someone who is (usually) getting paid for the work done, because his/her output reliably meets the client's needs. Professionalism implies skill, knowledge, responsibility, proper communication, etc., but these are all to meet the client's (business) needs. Hans On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 7:32 AM, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote: > On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Dave Close wrote: > > David Lang wrote: >> >> While HIPPA or PCI are clear triggers that can point at the need to have >>> a >>> Professional Sysadmin in charge, defining the terms this way makes it >>> easy to >>> say that the local Deli probably doesn't need a professional running >>> their >>> computers, but that the local Engineering firm that would go out of >>> business if >>> they lost their data does. >>> >> >> Paraphrasing as a devil's advocate: the local deli probably doesn't need >> a competent administrator while the local engineering firm does. Seems to >> me that you are equating competence with professionalism. Tell that to the >> licensed doctors or lawyers sanctioned for incompetence. >> > > Well, if we don't try to make professionalism imply competence, then why > does LOPSA exist? > > Doctors or lawyers who are sanctioned for incompetence (or otherwise > failing to live up to the code of conduct) are being sanctioned to support > the idea that professionalism implies competence. > > I'd say it's less "doesn't need" and more "doesn't absolutly require" a > sysadmin that covers every base and thinks ahead. > > That doesn't mean that they won't benefit from having one, or that the > people who support them aren't professionals, just that it's a small enough > job that they can get away with less. > > And in no way am I saying that !professional implies !competent (before > anyone brings up that straw man) > > David Lang > > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech@lists.lopsa.org > https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ >
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
