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/
