I'm not sure I understand point #2. I mean, what does having a one-on-one deal have to do with being a professional? I think the population at large would accept as professional many people who don't necessarily deal "one-on-one". Or, perhaps we need humpty-dumpty to define "one-on-one"?
-Adam On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Miles Fidelman <[email protected]> wrote: > Brandon Allbery wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Miles Fidelman < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Well, ok - but when a word has a well understood definition - >> doesn't an alternate definition take us into Humpty Dumpty land? >> >> >> It can, if used generally without advertising it beforehand. When >> presented as it has been here, specifically to get people to think about >> the alternative, it's clearly food for thought: how does this notional >> definition affect your viewpoint? >> >> >> Not so much offend, as wondering the point (and maybe being just a bit > snarky - it's been that kind of a day.). > > But seriously, returning to the discussion in progress - see comments > below: > -- > >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Paul Heinlein wrote: >> >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, David Lang wrote: >>> >>> Our work sure qualifies under the first point, and while large shops >>>> have checks in place, Snowden has shown that even the NSA can't prevent a >>>> rouge Sysadmin from doing series damage, and is no different than a large >>>> Engineering or Law firm that can attempt to put in similar checks, but >>>> can't possibly hope to prevent all problems. >>>> >>>> thoughts? >>>> >>> >>> Most organizations put large obstacles between their sysadmins and a >>> host of corporate activities, e.g., hiring full-time employees, purchasing >>> or selling capital assets, entering into binding legal agreements. >>> >>> Most organizations put obstacles between their sysadmins and a small >>> subset of data, e.g., employees' self-encrypted files (password managers or >>> SSH keys), some legal/personnel records. >>> >>> Few organizations can do more than that without having a huge budget for >>> both system administration and security. Personally, I wouldn't want to >>> work for one of them. >>> >> >> I agree, but I was more asking for thoughts on if this was a good >> defintiion of "Professional" and if this definition would work any better >> than the previous definitions we've tries to use for the term >> "professional" and the follow-up discussions on licensing/certification >> efforts. >> > > If one is trying to make the distinction of professional vs. > non-professional to other people - like management - changing definitions > seems like a non-starter. > > Though perhaps when framed as "when do you NEED a professional," or > certification, or licensing - vs. "what is a professional" - then the > definition might apply. > > As suggested by this point: > >> >> I think this definition is useful, because it is the first one that I've >> seen that is able to draw a line between the Sysadmin who is running their >> personal site or a local club/church site (something that I strongly >> believe should NOT be regulated/licensed) and someone running a bank (where >> they may have people working there who aren't licensed, but it would be >> reaonsble to say that the person in charge if not most of the senior people >> should be) >> > > Miles Fidelman > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In > practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
