Honestly the concern I have about "Body of Knowledge" and the principle of "profession" vs. "occupation" is this:
All the other "professions" listed have bodies of knowledge that don't fundamentally change month to month or year to year. Structural engineers may be able to use better, stronger concrete or better alloys, but those don't alter the fundamental principles of building a bridge or an office building. Doctors may get new drugs that help cure $DISEASE, but the function of the kidneys hasn't changed. We're in an industry where software changes month to month. The fundamental principles upon which we might base a BoK aren't yet mature - for example, what constitutes a proper backup strategy? That's something that's completely platform and technology independent, and I doubt we'd get consensus from any 3 random LOPSA members consulted. Is there a BoK that could be abstracted between Linux and Windows admins? Those running mainframe OSes? Big Iron vs SMB? I don't know that there are yet. I don't know that there ever will be. One of the great triumphs of the internet is that it's the ultimate disruptive technology - it forces us to change and allows us to iterate quite rapidly. Why then are we trying to hold on to the notion of traditional professions or occupations? Couldn't this distinction be one of the casualties of the way the world is now? On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Willard Dennis <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Edward D'Azzo-Caisser < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> When I look at our community, I see people concerned about system >> administrators being knowledgeable and qualified. I see it whenever someone >> asks for help in IRC and elsewhere, whenever someone volunteers to mentor a >> protege and whenever the subject of the profession or education as a whole >> comes up. Why not make "knowledgeable and competent" system administrators >> the central goal and look at what we need to accomplish this? I think a >> base body of knowledge is important for the ideal administrator. A code of >> ethics is also important, so is continued education and a number of other >> factors. Let's assume there are a few more out there, too. Now, assume >> someone tries to start their career right and achieve all of these goals. >> How do they know where to begin? If they make some headway, how do they >> know they're on the right track? When they're done, how do they know >> they've succeeded? That's where I think you should direct this endeavor. >> > > This is more in line with why I'm interested in professionalization - to > ensure that systems administrators are practicing their trade in accordance > with recognized best practices, in an ethical manner, and have the training > and ongoing educational support to do so. I personally am less interested > in the licensing and competition restriction aspects that mark some > professions (although I would want to see the day that totally unqualified > people can't BS their way into a sysadmin job, and cause their hiring > organization to suffer as a result.) > > One of the definitions of professionalization that I think is simple and > achievable is the one from the L. Cox paper (dissertation) from 2010, which > states three attributes: > > 1) a [recognized / accepted] Body of Knowledge - this has been started by > some community members (Halprin and Tsalolikhin) but is only an outline > of an best practices audit checklist / normative literature list > respectively; I think that the meat of a BOK will come out of the higher-ed > institutions that are offering / working towards a 2/4-year degree in > systems administration/operations, since they need this for their > curriculum (also the open-source OpsSchool movement is producing > instructional material as well, not sure if any higher-ed institutions > have/will adopt this.) > > 2) A Code of Ethics - LOPSA and USENIX/LISA already has an agreed-upon > CoE, so this exists already. > > 3) A Professional Organization with a growing set of published papers and > best practices - We seem to have two professional organizations: LISA (nee > SAGE, the USENIX SIG) and LOPSA. LISA does have a set of published papers > ("Short Topics" books, and the annual LISA conference proceedings) but not > sure that anyone is promulgating a set of best practices at this point. (As > far as a "best practices" set goes, I like Limoncelli et al's book "The > Practice of System and Network Administration", and would like to see this > endorsed by LOPSA/LISA.) > > There is much work to be done in this area, but over time with people's > effort, is think the above is doable,and would form the basis for folks who > want to be known as a professional systems admin/operations practitioner. > > Thanks, > Will > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > >
_______________________________________________ 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/
