In a message written on Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14:52PM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Now, after 10 years, I reflect back on what I've done, and what I do now. To me, if a business is loose-knit with no clear job descriptions or titles (ie. too small to have CXO etc), I feel that a business card should reflect what one feels is the primary job responsibility, or what they do the most (or love the most).
A /business card/ should reflect how you want those outside of your company to classify you. For instance, you may be Head Coder, Operations Manager, and Chief Kitchen Cleaner, but when you go to Nanog you hand out cards that say "Peering Coordinator" because you want people to know to e-mail you for peering. Having them know you are Chief Kitchen Cleaner is of no value. This is also why many people have more than one set of business cards. The NANOG "Peering Coordinator" may be the IETF "Protocol Architect". This is also different from your "offical title", that is what appears on your HR paperwork. That is relevant to your resume/cv, because if someone calls to check and see if you really were "CTO", it's HR who is going to say yes or no.
How does the ops community feel about using this designation? Is it intrusive or offensive to those who hold real engineering degrees? I'm content with 'network manager', given that I still do perform (in my sleep) numerous system tasks and have to sometimes deal with front-line helpdesk stuff.
"Engineer" by it self doesn't imply certification to me. Those with Engineering certifications are typically a "P.E.", which just like M.D. or PhD mean something specific. "Civil Engineer" implies nothing to me, "Bob Smith, P.E." does. Thus I am ok with someone calling themselves a "Network Engineer". You can then also be "Bob Smith, CCIE" or "Bob Smith, JNCIE" if you feel you need to be "certified" in some way. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/