> > *On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Chase Hoffman > <driftpeas...@driftpeasant.org <driftpeas...@driftpeasant.org>> wrote:* >> >> *I asked this in the other thread - what advocacy? For what? Against >> what?* >> >> >> *I've never seen LOPSA take a position on anything publicly.* >> > > > *It's so easy to beat up on LOPSA or its leadership. And I think that is > because we feel there is a lot of unfulfilled potential. But let's not lose > sight of the fact that while we do need to kick the energy and activity up, > we're a healthy organization. And that didn't Just Happen; people gave a > lot of themselves in some difficult and stressful times to ensure that (I'm > not talking about myself here). * >
I'm not trying to beat up on LOPSA or its leadership. I renewed my membership this year - clearly I have a desire to be a part of the group. But aside from LOPSA East and Cascadia, and these mailing lists, I'm unsure what LOPSA actually DOES. We're a healthy organization in that we exist, people join, and we're doing no active harm to anyone. I'm just not sure what that means in a broader context. > > > *The simple fact that LOPSA continues to sustain itself is a collective > statement that people in our industry want to work together, that we're > eager to make our industry stronger, that we want advance the profession, > and that we believe we can do all those things. So, Chase, IMO you aren't > wrong that LOPSA is silent at moments when we should speak out and take a > specific position that's meaningful to system administrators. But every > single thing LOPSA does (a new chapter forming, sponsoring a conference, > having a table at a linuxfest, giving an award, etc) is a form of marketing > the organization and therefore advocating for awareness of system > administration. And that advocacy, even if it isn't around a specific > position other than awareness of our profession and community, is a service > to all system administrators. * > > *I also believe that our advocacy should not just be outward-facing. We > should be advocating within our community for certain things: ethics, > diversity, sharing knowledge, best practices, etc. * > Those are all awesome, but we none of them are advocacy for anything other than membership, and we haven't done any other advocacy. If we have, please, point me to it. I've never seen LOPSA take a position or issue a statement on ANYTHING other than the lawsuit. That's what I'm trying to find out here. What advocacy have we done? (As a side note, showing up at events targeted at systems administrators and noting that there's a group of systems administrator is not advocating for awareness of systems administration. They already know it's there. If they didn't, they wouldn't be at a Linuxfest or conference. We're not a ninja profession.) > > > > > > > > *All that having been said, last year I pitched an idea to the Board about > how to better execute advocacy and develop professional content. I'll share > it below. We have not pursued it in its entirety, but the Professional > Content Committee has some goals that are close (e.g. Body of Knowledge). > --- I suggest we establish a procedure for developing:1. Quick position > statements on public policy or awareness issues in the spotlight, e.g. The > Snowden thing.* > Okay, fair enough, though I do question how we determine what our policy is. > > > > > > *2. Technical briefs of things for the IT community, e.g. Cloud, DevOps, > etc. I think tech briefs should describe a technology in very clear and > accessible terms as well as explore the composition of that technology and > factors to consider in its use.* > Again, sure, but part of the problem that we've had with the BoK is that if you put 10 sysadmins in a room and ask them to define "the cloud" you'll get 8 different explanations, one blank look, and one cascade of maniacal laughter. > > > > > *3. Position papers on technologies or methodologies, e.g. Control change > rates and use automated testing in your organization to minimize > change-based errors.* > See my answer to 2. > > My own view is that we have a small standing committee to handle > number one in a very agile way. Maybe the communications committee. > Maybe board approval. > > Two and three should be ad hoc committees assembled on a per issue > basis, consisting of relevant experts from our community. There should > be someone in charge of polling/selecting experts as well as > shepherding each brief or position paper. And we should probably > create guidelines for briefs and position papers. We could also > consider having RFC periods for those before a final revision is > released and then having them e-voted upon by the membership. > > I've had this feeling for a while that LOPSA should/could be the > anti-Gartner. This points us in that direction and does so by > leveraging our community. > --- > > The ideas were well-received but the Board essentially voted for our top > priorities and, to my disappointment, it didn't make the cut. And at the > time, due to work commitments, I was not in a position to find a way to > make these things happen. > > Thoughts? Are those three types of content reasonable for LOPSA to > produce? And are those the right ways to have our community produce them? > > (Sorry for such a long email!) > > Thanks, > Matt Disney >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
