On Sun, 10 Nov 2013, Willard Dennis wrote:
Hi Gene,
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 12:27 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
There was a comment that we need to do this before someone else does it
for/to us. Who is this someone else? Why would they do this? Are
ther goals/motifs in line with LOPSA or where do they differ? How
far along in this path may they be?
I believe one of the examples given was a "healthcare.gov" type of fiasco
whereupon the government (or industry in the crosshairs) would push for
requirements for practitioners of systems administration (certification?
licensing?) that may not be what we would like to see... Not sure how
likely this would be (at least in the sort-to-mid term) but it did come up.
It has already been mentioned on this list that there is a study being done
for the Department of Homeland Security as to what level of Federal
involvement would be needed to "professionalize the cybersecurity field"
(see https://db.tt/ujCs6yJf for the draft study.)
While the government could impose requirements on companies wanting to get
government contracts, I don't see how they could possibly impose requirements on
every company/organization.
Look at the states that have tried to tax computer work (programming services,
etc) for examples of how poorly it's going to work.
Now, it is possible to have a field that has certification and similar without
them being mandatory for everyone. If you look at Auto Repair you will see a
field that has lots of certifications (both vendor and 'independant'), but you
can still be self-taught and work without such certifications (although in some
places, government regulations try very hard to regulate the independants out of
existance, I'm in California and see a lot of this)
With System Administration and Programming they will have a much harder time,
how do you define the line between being the 'computer person' in a small office
and being a 'regulated professional'?
Whatever is done needs to recognize and accept the idea that not everyone who
does this sort of work is going to be willing to become part of.
Just try and find out who considers themselves a 'System Administrator', and
then ask the people who don't consider themselves one what they do and you will
find a LOT of people who LOPSA would consider one who don't self-identify as
one. Trying to impose requirements on people like that is just not going to
happen.
and with Dev-Ops and Cloud Computing being misinterpreted by people to mean that
System Administrators aren't needed any more, the Programmers can do everything
themselves (which really means that the Programmers all become System
Administrators), anything that imposes requirements on System Administrators,
but not Programmers doing System Administration is just going to lead to the job
title being eliminated.
David Lang
IF they exist, why are we not working with them to come up with
something meaningful/useful/acceptable to all of us.
More importantly, if they DO NOT exist, why not? If this group is
the only one talking about this, there is a bigger problem. Who really
cares? LOPSA and Usenix organizations are tiny. This past summer I
attended the "Service-Now" "Knowledge13" conference in Vegas. I don't
remember the actual attendee count, but it was something over 4000 people
with about 6000 expected at next years conference. For a "new" conference
focused around 1 software package, this is huge. By comparison, there
is almost no buzz around system administration.
That's a big unanswered question... See Matt Simmons' post from July 2013
to this list, exp. his point #4, "Lack of cohesion" -
https://lists.lopsa.org/pipermail/discuss/2013-July/018397.html
I think it's due to the individualistic nature of most people who are
involved with system admin, the lack of common education in the field, as
well as the technology siloing that many people fall into. I also think
that it's because some organizations have failed to demonstrate value by
not having enough material of interest to offer to the profession as a
whole. Perhaps the elements of a professionalization movement (a recognized
Body of Knowledge, educational and ongoing professional development
resources, etc.) would be what is missing.
So back to topic..
Every couple years this issue comes up in some form. In the past it's
been about "certifications" and attempting to come up with some
standards and tests. To have tests, you need to have something to
study. A body of knowledge. There have been a few minor steps in
this direction, but it quickly falls out to the back of other things
needing to get done, then forgotten and out of date. My feeling
the thread this time is called Professionalization instead
of Certification, but it's the same core issues. So..
while (1) {
bring up subject
argue for a few weeks to months
do nothing for longer
}
What's going to be different this time around?
I know what you mean... Found a great slide deck that Geoff Halprin put out
for LISA'99, entitled "Maturing Systems Administration", with many of these
same issues listed... I'm sure the conversation has been going on before
that time as well. I lack the historical perspective, being a newcomer to
LISA (the conference) and only relatively active in volunteering for LOPSA
programs. I'm very sure that others could chime in on the history of this.
No guarantees on anything, but... I and some other folks are willing to
give it another try this time around.
--Gene
Will
---
En somme, je fais ce que je peux, je souffre de la souffrance universelle,
et je tâche de la soulager, je n'ai que les chétives forces d'un homme, et
je crie à tous: aidez-moi.
(In short, I am doing what I can, I suffer with the same universal
suffering, and I try to assuage it, I possess only the puny forces of a
man, and I cry to all: "Help me!")
-- Victor Hugo
_______________________________________________
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/
