Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!netcom!stratus!cloud9!banyan!gordon From: gordon@banyan.UUCP (Gordon Lee@Eng@Banyan) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Programmer Licensing? Summary: Computing professional licensing Keywords: software safety, government regulation Message-ID: <601@banyan.UUCP> Date: 17 Nov 89 20:08:41 GMT Article-I.D.: banyan.601 References: <39400056@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <242@cherry5.UUCP> <4600@ae.sei.cmu.edu> <1487@redsox.bsw.com> Reply-To: gordon@banyan.UUCP (Gordon Lee@Eng@Banyan) Organization: Banyan Systems, Inc. Lines: 258 In article <1487@redsox.bsw.com> campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >In article <4600@ae.sei.cmu.edu> rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) writes: >-How is this argument different from the one used against licensing of other >-professionals, such as engineers, plumbers, and beauticians? > >The major difference is that most licensed professionals provide their >services to individuals who are presumably in need of protection from >charlatans. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, electricians, beauticians -- all >provide services to individuals who could be injured, or even killed, by an >incompetent practitioner. > >However, programmers almost always provide their services to business or >government organizations, who should (I believe) be smart enough (or cynical >enough) to protect themselves. > >Therefore I oppose programmer licensing, but not the concept of licensing >in general. It is not as simple as that. Licensing practices in other engineering disciplines do not exist only to protect individuals, they exist also to protect the public as a whole. Civil Engineers must be licensed before they attempt to build a bridge on a public road. Likewise software engineers ought to be licensed before they attempt to design an air traffic control system. The impact of the work on public safety is just as large a consideration as the protection of individuals from malpractice. Note that I used the term software engineer where you have said programmer. I think that a software engineer is a person who like a civil engineer must assume responsibility for the proper practice of his profession from a moral and ethical standpoint. A programmer, I feel, is a person who takes direction from a software engineer and defers responsibility and culpability to the SE. Just as a construction foreman on a bridge project would take direction from the civil engineer. In the eyes of society, it is not the foreman's responsibility if the bridge collapses. (But I would hope that he would blow the whistle if he somehow recognizes that something is blatantly wrong with the civil eng's design). Like it or not, I think that the barn-storming days are largely behind us, and that some form of regulation is inevitable. It is important that we as a professional community take the initiative and demonstrate that we are capable of regulating ourselves through professional associations. If we don't, we will lose credibility over time. Software "workers" right now enjoy the advantage of an artificially small labour pool, and this makes it very easy to get cavalier about job security. But this labour pool will grow, and when it does, salaries will no longer be as high and the job market will no longer be candy land. Potential employers faced with candidates of equivalent experience will be forced to look at credentials in order to make a decision, ie education and licensing. - Gordon Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Licensing of computing professionals Summary: Computing professional licensing Expires: References: <39400056@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <242@cherry5.UUCP> <4600@ae.sei.cmu.edu> <1487@redsox.bsw.com> Sender: Reply-To: gordon@banyan.UUCP (Gordon Lee@Eng@Banyan) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Banyan Systems, Inc. Keywords: software safety, government regulation In article <1487@redsox.bsw.com> campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >In article <4600@ae.sei.cmu.edu> rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) writes: >-How is this argument different from the one used against licensing of other >-professionals, such as engineers, plumbers, and beauticians? > >The major difference is that most licensed professionals provide their >services to individuals who are presumably in need of protection from >charlatans. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, electricians, beauticians -- all >provide services to individuals who could be injured, or even killed, by an >incompetent practitioner. > >However, programmers almost always provide their services to business or >government organizations, who should (I believe) be smart enough (or cynical >enough) to protect themselves. > >Therefore I oppose programmer licensing, but not the concept of licensing >in general. It is not as simple as that. Licensing practices in other engineering disciplines do not exist only to protect individuals, they exist also to protect the public as a whole. Civil Engineers must be licensed before they attempt to build a bridge on a public road. Likewise software engineers ought to be licensed before they attempt to design an air traffic control system. The impact of the work on public safety is just as large a consideration as the protection of individuals from malpractice. Note that I used the term software engineer where you have said programmer. I think that a software engineer is a person who like a civil engineer must assume responsibility for the proper practice of his profession from a moral and ethical standpoint. A programmer, I feel, is a person who takes direction from a software engineer and defers responsibility and culpability to the SE. Just as a construction foreman on a bridge project would take direction from the civil engineer. In the eyes of society, it is not the foreman's responsibility if the bridge collapses. (But I would hope that he would blow the whistle if he somehow recognizes that something is blatantly wrong with the civil eng's design). Like it or not, I think that the barn-storming days are largely behind us, and that some form of regulation is inevitable. It is important that we as a professional community take the initiative and demonstrate that we are capable of regulating ourselves through professional associations. If we don't, we will lose credibility over time. Software "workers" right now enjoy the advantage of an artificially small labour pool, and this makes it very easy to get cavalier about job security. But this labour pool will grow, and when it does, salaries will no longer be as high and the job market will no longer be candy land. Potential employers faced with candidates of equivalent experience will be forced to look at credentials in order to make a decision, ie education and licensing. - Gordon Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Programmer Licensing? Summary: Computing professional licensing Expires: References: <39400056@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <242@cherry5.UUCP> <4600@ae.sei.cmu.edu> <1487@redsox.bsw.com> Sender: Reply-To: gordon@banyan.UUCP (Gordon Lee@Eng@Banyan) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Banyan Systems, Inc. Keywords: software safety, government regulation In article <1487@redsox.bsw.com> campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >In article <4600@ae.sei.cmu.edu> rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) writes: >-How is this argument different from the one used against licensing of other >-professionals, such as engineers, plumbers, and beauticians? > >The major difference is that most licensed professionals provide their >services to individuals who are presumably in need of protection from >charlatans. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, electricians, beauticians -- all >provide services to individuals who could be injured, or even killed, by an >incompetent practitioner. > >However, programmers almost always provide their services to business or >government organizations, who should (I believe) be smart enough (or cynical >enough) to protect themselves. > >Therefore I oppose programmer licensing, but not the concept of licensing >in general. It is not as simple as that. Licensing practices in other engineering disciplines do not exist only to protect individuals, they exist also to protect the public as a whole. Civil Engineers must be licensed before they attempt to build a bridge on a public road. Likewise software engineers ought to be licensed before they attempt to design an air traffic control system. The impact of the work on public safety is just as large a consideration as the protection of individuals from malpractice. Note that I used the term software engineer where you have said programmer. I think that a software engineer is a person who like a civil engineer must assume responsibility for the proper practice of his profession from a moral and ethical standpoint. A programmer, I feel, is a person who takes direction from a software engineer and defers responsibility and culpability to the SE. Just as a construction foreman on a bridge project would take direction from the civil engineer. In the eyes of society, it is not the foreman's responsibility if the bridge collapses. (But I would hope that he would blow the whistle if he somehow recognizes that something is blatantly wrong with the civil eng's design). Like it or not, I think that the barn-storming days are largely behind us, and that some form of regulation is inevitable. It is important that we as a professional community take the initiative and demonstrate that we are capable of regulating ourselves through professional associations. If we don't, we will lose credibility over time. Software "workers" right now enjoy the advantage of an artificially small labour pool, and this makes it very easy to get cavalier about job security. But this labour pool will grow, and when it does, salaries will no longer be as high and the job market will no longer be candy land. Potential employers faced with candidates of equivalent experience will be forced to look at credentials in order to make a decision, ie education and licensing. - Gordon Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Licensing of computing professionals Summary: Computing professional licensing Expires: References: <39400056@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <242@cherry5.UUCP> <4600@ae.sei.cmu.edu> <1487@redsox.bsw.com> Sender: Reply-To: gordon@banyan.UUCP (Gordon Lee@Eng@Banyan) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Banyan Systems, Inc. Keywords: software safety, government regulation In article <1487@redsox.bsw.com> campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >In article <4600@ae.sei.cmu.edu> rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) writes: >-How is this argument different from the one used against licensing of other >-professionals, such as engineers, plumbers, and beauticians? > >The major difference is that most licensed professionals provide their >services to individuals who are presumably in need of protection from >charlatans. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, electricians, beauticians -- all >provide services to individuals who could be injured, or even killed, by an >incompetent practitioner. > >However, programmers almost always provide their services to business or >government organizations, who should (I believe) be smart enough (or cynical >enough) to protect themselves. > >Therefore I oppose programmer licensing, but not the concept of licensing >in general. It is not as simple as that. Licensing practices in other engineering disciplines do not exist only to protect individuals, they exist also to protect the public as a whole. Civil Engineers must be licensed before they attempt to build a bridge on a public road. Likewise software engineers ought to be licensed before they attempt to design an air traffic control system. The impact of the work on public safety is just as large a consideration as the protection of individuals from malpractice. Note that I used the term software engineer where you have said programmer. I think that a software engineer is a person who like a civil engineer must assume responsibility for the proper practice of his profession from a moral and ethical standpoint. A programmer, I feel, is a person who takes direction from a software engineer and defers responsibility and culpability to the SE. Just as a construction foreman on a bridge project would take direction from the civil engineer. In the eyes of society, it is not the foreman's responsibility if the bridge collapses. (But I would hope that he would blow the whistle if he somehow recognizes that something is blatantly wrong with the civil eng's design). Like it or not, I think that the barn-storming days are largely behind us, and that some form of regulation is inevitable. It is important that we as a professional community take the initiative and demonstrate that we are capable of regulating ourselves through professional associations. If we don't, we will lose credibility over time. Software "workers" right now enjoy the advantage of an artificially small labour pool, and this makes it very easy to get cavalier about job security. But this labour pool will grow, and when it does, salaries will no longer be as high and the job market will no longer be candy land. Potential employers faced with candidates of equivalent experience will be forced to look at credentials in order to make a decision, ie education and licensing. - Gordon -- ============================================================================= Gordon Lee gordon@banyan.com or gordon@bu-it.bu.edu Banyan Systems, Inc. Westboro, MA "Pay no attention to that man behind the keyboard..."