[NTLUG:Discuss] RE: software engineer? -- Professional Development List

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 16:34, Cameron, Thomas wrote:
> Both of you kids need to take this garbage offline.
> I personally couldn't care less which of you has the bigger
> technical weenie (and that's really all this thread is about). 

Agreed.  My apologies for responding, I should have ignored it. 
Instead, I responded in poor tastes.

Regarding the "engineering" title, I also agree that such discussions on
"professional development" are more "meta-technical" than "technical"
and probably don't belong on the list.  My apologies for serving up my
longwinded opinion on that.

For anyone who would be interested in discussing it further, please
consider joining a "professional development" list I run here:  
  http://www.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/itprodev  

I would really like to build an "united front" to challenge various
state BoPEs to enter the 21st century.  I think it's time to start
offering a slew of new, software engineering technologist and software
engineering licenses -- ones that solve the neverending "vendor pushing
product" issues in the certification world.

Most of the views I've seen are attempting to "tear down" the
established engineering licensing boards, and I don't think that's going
to solve the problems either.  In fact, that view is largely pushed by
the "vendors pushing product" -- hence the circular issues.  I have no
problem with people calling themselves "software engineers" informally,
but I also recognize the serious public safety issues that the lack of
recognizing the term as a reserved title for formal consulting and other
public representation.

So please consider joining, even if it's to flame my views.  Thanx.

> Cheers,
> Thomas Cameron, RHCE, CNE, MCSE, MCT

Bryan J. Smith, E.I. FL '95 (BSCpE UCF '97)
A+ CCA CCDA CCDP CCNA CCNP(-1) CIWA CIWP CIWSA CNA iNET+ MasCIWA Linux+
LPIC-1 LPIC-2 MCSA2K MCSE2K MCSA2K:Sec MCSE2K:Sec Net+ SCNA8 SCSA8
SCSecA9 Sec+ Svr+


-- 
 Discussing distributions is like discussing political parties.
Not only do they enflame people, but they often break down into
sets of blind assumptions.  Instead, people should focus on the
   specific details of underlying technologies, just like one
should when it comes to specific terms in legislation.  Because
the similarities are often more surprising than the differences.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith, E.I.                          b.j.smith at ieee.org