My company, Consolidated Widgets, Inc., has previously decided to standardize on MS software at all levels. When it comes time to make hiring decisions, whether for FTEs or for conslutants, how should I proceed? Let's take the example of an Exchange deployment project.
First thing to be decided: Do I want a generic technologist? Do I want an unrelated technology guru? Do I want a Windows/Exchange guru? Assuming I choose the last option: Do I want someone who has heard of Exchange and may be able to help with my deployment after reading some books? Do I want someone who is an expert, and can demonstrate their expertise somehow? The demonstration of the expertise is all that the MVP status is, IMO. You don't attain MVP status by sending in a bunch of cereal box tops, as one can do to get an MCSE. You whole premise is that an employee/conslutant with an MVP will automatically recommend technology from their masters *for their own personal gain*. I don't see this being the case. If I'm hiring Ed (to use him as an example) to help with my Exchange migration, I've already made the decision to use that MS technology. At that point, I want the best person I can find and afford. Why hire a consultant, if not for their knowledge? > -----Original Message----- > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 12:20 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 > > > Titles are priceless. > > Ethics are about avoiding real and *perceived* conflicts of > interest. If > you work in an industry and accept gifts from vendors in that > industry, it > is always going to at least be a perceived conflict of > interest. Whether > it actually is or not is absolutely irrelevant. If you own your own > business and provide consulting on how to build bridges, then > no, an MVP > title would not be a real or perceived conflict of interest. > If you are in > IT, it is. > > > > Kindly define "significant gifts such as large dollar items > and titles". > > Where, exactly is your threshold? Let's get down to > specifics, Greg. > > > > How is it a conflict of interest when it is my job to > provide consulting > > services surrounding Microsoft products? It is not my job, > for example, to > > steer people away from Windows to Linux. > > > > Why can one not serve two masters, particularly if the two masters' > > directions are complementary? Still, your entire point is > flawed since > > neither Microsoft nor the MVP program is my master, and > neither ask anything > > of me, period. (I take that back--they do ask one thing, > that we behave in > > the forums. If you claim that's a conflict of interest, it > will further > > confirm my belief that you've lost it.) The MVP award is a > "thank you", if > > you will, for past service. Not once has anyone directed > me to do a single > > thing. > > > > Again, for 11,000,001st time, you have failed to adequately > explain how > > there is any conflict of interest between my being an MVP > and what my > > employer asks me to do. Microsoft gives MVPs a modest > non-monetary award > > for their work doing peer support. It's right there, > disclosed in the MVP > > website, as I told you before. Personally, I provide this > peer support > > service on my own personal time, not my employer's, and of > my own free will. > > My employer pays me to perform consulting on Microsoft > Exchange, Windows and > > various other complementary technologies to its customers. > Most other MVPs > > are either consultants or Exchange administrators. We > answer technical > > questions and try to help people with their technical > problems. We do not > > sell Microsoft products. Whatever we say we believe. > Where is the conflict > > of interest, pray tell? > > > > I cannot recall ever having been encouraged to evangelize > Microsoft's > > products because I am an MVP. Personally, I don't hesitate > to express my > > opinions about Exchange even if the good folks at Microsoft > disagree with > > me. Many others who have been MVPs longer that I are even > more forthcoming. > > Please demonstrate exactly what the conflict of interest is and its > > insidious result, Mr. Deckler. How, exactly, has the MVP > program caused > > such an ethical dilemma that you must rant and rave over > it? Let's get > > specific, though, because your 50,000-foot view is rather > unconvincing. > > > > For the record, my employer knows I am an MVP, knows that I > receive a modest > > gift of appreciation, and has no problem with this. So my > employer, which > > happens to be a very ethical company, has no problem with > this arrangement. > > Why should you? > > > > It is mighty judgmental of you to presume that any person > is unprofessional > > solely because he does not adhere to your personal > standards of ethics. > > Your opinion implies that because you define there to be a > conflict of > > interest, no reasonable person can decide for himself to > the contrary. That > > is, you see yourself as the sole arbiter of professional > ethics in this > > field. Clearly you believe that MVPs are unprofessional > because they do not > > adhere to your standards of ethics, even if those standards > are undefined > > and based solely upon your own simplistic idea of > standards, your own > > ignorance, your logical fallacies, and your personal > prejudices. As long as > > you espouse such ridiculous ideas, I will call you on them. > > > > You've been spewing this bile for eight years and you know > you're right > > because, to paraphrase, nobody has proven you wrong. The > real problem is > > that you haven't convinced anyone other than yourself that > you're right. > > You are the one with the opinions. But wait--you say you > deal in facts. In > > an eariler post, you state that it should be obvious that > everything you say > > is your opinion. Which is it, fact or opinion? Well, I > will argue that you > > don't deal in facts, you're all about opinion, so don't go > claiming it's all > > about "known facts". There isn't a single fact in your > diatribe except for > > those that say or imply, "I believe...". I do agree that > it's a fact that > > you believe some ridiculous point. > > > > People do read what you say in your posts, as opposed to > reading what they > > read. Everyone recognizes that you are speaking with your > own voice. It's > > obvious to all that you really believe what you say and have a firm > > conviction. That's how they know for certain that you're a > bag of gas. > > > > As to this thread being a waste of bytes, it has been your choice to > > continue it. It seems hypocritical that you post a > complaint that everyone > > else is wasting their time and bandwidth, when you yourself > are guilty of > > just that by posting such messages. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > > Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Greg Deckler > > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:44 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 > > > > I will state this again for the 11 millionth and 1 time > now. Accepting > > direct gifts from third parties, especially significant > gifts such as large > > dollar items and titles, presents a real or perceived > conflict of interest > > between an IT professional's client (either the customer or > company that he > > or she works for) and that third party. > > > > This is the most very basic definition of conflict of > interest. One cannot > > serve two masters. If you have been given something, and > ESPECIALLY if it is > > something significant that can be taken away, then it > presents a conflict of > > interest. This, from an ethical, perspective is wrong. > > > > This is the logic and the conclusion. It is as simple as > that. It is not > > only what I believe but WHY I believe it. If someone can > prove to me that > > this argument is illogical or flawed in some way, then I > would believe > > something else. I am not close-minded or stubborn. Thus > far, nobody has > > proven this argument to be flawed in any way. A lot of > personal attacks, I > > have been called a wife beater, a liar and someone who > starves children, but > > no one has refuted this most basic argument. I have never > wavered from this > > argument, this has been the argument since the beginning > that this all > > started. This is why companies tell their employees that > they must send back > > gifts in excess of a certain dollar amount. This is BASIC ETHICS. > > > > Regardless of whether MCSE is unethical or whatever crazy > argument you want > > to throw at it, this is basic ethics people. If you want to > change my mind, > > then prove the above argument false. Simple as that. > > > > Now, I don't bring this stuff up. All it causes is this > kind of craziness. > > Other people bring this stuff up. Exactly why is a mystery > to me. Look at > > the subject of this message thread for Christ's sake. Are > you kidding me? > > And it is not like I even threw in one of my whimsical > Microsoft barbs. If > > someone is going to bring this stuff up, I am always, > ALWAYS going to stick > > to this perspective and explain things the way I see them. > Nobody has proven > > this logic wrong in 8 years. But, hey, I'm willing to think > that someone > > might. There may be a flaw in there somewhere, that I do not see. > > > > And all this nonsense about "tone" and stating things as > "my opinion" is all > > crap, a waste of bytes and besides the point. People read > what they want to > > read in my posts, plain and simple. What is straight talk > to one person is > > rude to another. What is polite to one is rambling, > annoying and pointless > > to another. There are way too many people in this world to > try to please so > > I speak in my own voice. It is a matter of fact voice that > sticks to known > > facts and logic. If you are offended by my posts, well, > there is not much I > > can do. I am not going to worry over every word and > sentence for perfect > > structure and politeness. I simply do not have the time. > > > > > First of all, from a grammatical point-of-view, you only > need to state > > > that it is your opinion at the beginning of a paragraph > or passage > > > because it is fundamentally understood that follows the > first phrase > > > or sentence further backs up your opinion. > > > > > > It is my opinion that you are more worried about reveling in your > > > moral and symantec righteousness than achieving the > mental clarity to > > > realize that your 1200 word marathon responses make you > look like a > > > total prat. But that is just my opinion. > > > > > > Disagreement is a necessary part of life and the human > condition. If > > > we all got along, we'd all think the same way and life > would get very > > > dull. You can disagree with someone (even with Ed) > without saying they > > are wrong. > > > This is the difference between stating a fact vs. > opinion. By saying > > > that someone is wrong, you are implying that you are > correct and your > > > reasons are based upon fact or accepted truth. > > > > > > Allrightythen! I guess this means that we aren't due to > bring this > > > topic up until June. Thanks for the comic relief, Greg! > > > > > > Eric Fretz > > > > > > L-3 Communications > > > ComCept Division > > > 2800 Discovery Blvd. > > > Rockwall, TX 75032 > > > tel: 972.772.7501 > > > fax: 972.772.7510 > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:50 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Migrating from GroupWise 6.5 > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, there are those with the opinion that > stating anything > > > as a fact and not an opinion is abrasive and rude. In my > opinion, this > > > opinion is absurd because it is fundamentally understood > that anything > > > that comes out of anyone's mouth is simply an opinion and > not a fact. > > > In my opinion, there may be some people with the opinion > that people > > > should not go around stating their opinions. But, in my opinion, > > > everyone has opinions and it gets rather monotonous and > boring to keep > > > stating "in my opinion" all the time when, in my opinion, > it should be > > understood that everything is an opinion. > > > > > > In my opinion, people have opinions about lots of things > that they > > > consider facts. In my opinion, there are many that hold > the opinion > > > that the earth is round. But, in my opinion, this is > simply an opinion > > > as, in my opinion, there are others that hold the opinion > that the > > > earth is flat. In my opinion, this all depends on your > opinion of the > > > words "earth", "round" and "flat". In my opinion, if, in > your opinion, > > > the word "round" refers to a 2-dimensional circular > object, then, in > > > my opinion, your opinion would be that the earth is not > round since, > > > in my opinion, your opinion would be that the earth would > be a sphere, > > > and not round. Of couse, in my opinion, if your opinion > was that a > > > sphere is perfectly symmetrical such that all points on > its surface > > > are equal distance from its center, then, in my opinion, > your opinion > > > about the earth being a sphere might be wrong since, in > my opinion, > > > there are those that hold the opinion that the earth is > not a perfect > > > sphere but is actually a bit elliptical in shape. In > addition, in my > > > opinion, there are elevation variations on the surface of > the earth as > > > well which would mean that, in my opinion, the earth does > not meet the > > > definition of a sphere if your opinion is that a sphere > means that all > > points on the surface of a 3-d object are equal distance > from its center. > > > > > > Now, of course, in my opinion, this is all just my > opinion. But, in my > > > opinion, the bigger concern here is that, in your > opinion, are you > > > happy now? > > > > > > > I was not arguing with you about the symantics between fact & > > > > opinion, just rather pointing out that you tend to assert your > > > > opinions as fact. That is a very abrasive personality > trait and > > > > probably explains why the discussion list has reacted > to you the way > > that they have. > > > > > > > > Eric Fretz > > > > > > > > L-3 Communications > > > > ComCept Division > > > > 2800 Discovery Blvd. > > > > Rockwall, TX 75032 > > > > tel: 972.772.7501 > > > > fax: 972.772.7510 > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Web Interface: > > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-> bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode > > > =&lang > > > =english > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Web Interface: > > > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&t ext_mode=&lang > =english > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang= english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
