[ale] Re: [ale-unemployed] Re: [ale] Re: [ale-unemployed] Aname?

[John Mills]

James -

Thanks for the two well-reasoned replies. I agree with all your
substantive points, but I read the code a bit more strictly than you on a
couple of distinctions.

First and foremost, I am 100% in favor of an organization or a community
of us (I lost my job, too, and am now a fledgling consultant!), formal or
informal, where we can pool our experience and/or offer specific tools for
working technical professionals. I have two points of caution:

(1) We (like many other professional interest groups) mix common interests
and competitive interests: there are probably list readers better than I
at most or all the abilities I can offer a client, and I expect to compete
with y'all for at least some clients' business. This will affect the ways
we can help each other.

I consider myself collegial and generally have a "the more, the merrier"
approach to my professional community: I have learned from my colleagues
and tried to teach in my turn, but when I go to a job fair and see dozens
of very impressively qualified software engineers vying for a few
positions, I can't ignore the competition entirely.

(2) We don't operate in a legal vacuum in the market, and need to be
sensitive to the legalities of doing business, whatever business comes out
to be. This was the point of my note, naturally.

On 12 Feb 2002, James P. Kinney III wrote:

> John et al.
> (lengthy reply warning :)
> 
[ ... elided ...]

> As I read them (4 times now <yawn>), the rules are inclusionary in form.
> They set the standards for being included in the P.E. grouping. They do
> not form an exclusionary system that prevents the use of the term
> "engineer". They only prevent the use of the term "Professional
> Engineer" as that has legal license standing like M.D.

The rules define the practice of engineering inclusively, but pretty
broadly. Then they restrict who may legally offer this service.

> Participation in an association of a related engineering field by a P.E.
> will have no bearing on the status of the PE. Case in point, IEEE.

Absolutely.

> If a PE tried to group association members under his PE license, THAT
> would be a problem. Unless the PE was following the rules of the PE
> license and acting as the supervisory PE on all matters that were
> stamped as approved by him. That is what a PE can do.

As I understand this, the P.E. must truly understand and evaluate the work
which he/she certifies; it can't just be _pro_forma_. (This doesn't
contradict your comment.)

Naturally only certain types of work require any certification, and this
seldom includes software. The rules of engineering practice are not
applicable only to types of work which require certification by a licensed
individual, however.

> We don't claim to be Professional Engineers. We do claim to be
> Consulting Engineers. That has no legal status. (that I have found yet)

I would not say 'Consulting Engineers' - 'Software Consultants' or
'Software Developers' don't strike me as risky. YMMV.

> As an association of "engineers and consultants", we are not claiming to
> be involved in any way as doing the work of the members. The association
> is merely a common meeting point to serve the needs of its members as
> designated by the (unfinished) Mission Statement and carried out by an
> elected Board of Directors.

Furious agreement. I stipulate that problems could arise if we acted as a
clearing-house or source of referrals, or provided a list of qualified
"engineers", whether or not they were members. That's where I'm very
cautious.

> Since employers can toss around "... Engineer" as liberally as they
> choose, they have already researched the legalese and have found no
> conflict.

I have given this some thought over the years, and my non-legal opinions
are:

(1) There's a hidden presumption that an employer can evaluate the
capabilities of prospective staff and/or take their chances, but the
license is to protect the uninformed public trying to choose a physician,
lawyer, architect, plumber, hairdresser, ..., or engineer. <b>Offering
services <u>to the public</u> is the distinction here.</b>

(2) There was no software engineering material in the P.E. tests I took
c.1975, but I am obligated under my license to only perform work for which
I consider myself qualified. The license is something I can lose if I am
unprofessional (whatever that comes out to mean), and is thus a general
"club" that society holds over me. Much of my claimed "continuing
professional development" is directly related to software development, and
I would be 100% confident defending this to the Board. I wouldn't certify
to the strength or safety of a structure without a _lot_ of preparation,
since I don't normally do this kind of work. (All my degrees are in M.E.)

> It is my hope that in the long run, as a group we can help foster the
> adoption of the "best practices" methods that P.E.s use. It will benefit
> our membership to learn how to do a better job than the MSCEs!

More furious agreement!

Regards -
 John Mills


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.