Hi all, This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered. I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable. 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). For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth. 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. Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it. Steve
I'd say that probably around here for those like me that have been in operations/engineering management positions we don't give a squat about what title your biz card says you have, your actions and performance speak by themselves. There are no kings around here so titles most of the time are worthless. By asking what title may impress others is sort of a -1 to start. Cheers Jorge On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> wrote:
Hi all,
This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered.
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
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).
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
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.
Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it.
Steve
On 2010.03.30 23:20, Jorge Amodio wrote:
I'd say that probably around here for those like me that have been in operations/engineering management positions we don't give a squat about what title your biz card says you have, your actions and performance speak by themselves.
There are no kings around here so titles most of the time are worthless.
By asking what title may impress others is sort of a -1 to start.
It isn't about impression. I'd put 'janitor' on my business card for all I really care. I know what I love to do, and I know what I am great at. 10 years in the industry now. The only person who I try to impress is myself... by staying current on BCP and better ways to do things. My curiosity has the best of me, so I am looking for opinions. You have one ;) Those who know me know what I can do, and in reality, that is all I care about. I'm not out to impress anyone. I just want to be a good netizen like the rest. Impression isn't what I'm after. What I'm curious about is the potential over-use of the term 'engineer'. Cheers, Steve
On 31/03/2010, at 4:26 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
On 2010.03.30 23:20, Jorge Amodio wrote:
I'd say that probably around here for those like me that have been in operations/engineering management positions we don't give a squat about what title your biz card says you have, your actions and performance speak by themselves.
There are no kings around here so titles most of the time are worthless.
By asking what title may impress others is sort of a -1 to start.
It isn't about impression.
I'd put 'janitor' on my business card for all I really care.
I'm pretty sure Jonny Martin was Chief Internet Janitor in his previous role. He cleaned the tubes so the sewage could flow. -- Nathan Ward
Nathan, CIJ (Chief Internet Janitor) is kinda catchy ;) and this best describe my line of work. Keeping the company's Internet clean.. or when a mess is done already. But at the end of the day regardless of one's fancy title. there is still the work ... if you love it stay with it. my 0.002nc On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net> wrote:
On 31/03/2010, at 4:26 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
On 2010.03.30 23:20, Jorge Amodio wrote:
I'd say that probably around here for those like me that have been in operations/engineering management positions we don't give a squat about what title your biz card says you have, your actions and performance speak by themselves.
There are no kings around here so titles most of the time are worthless.
By asking what title may impress others is sort of a -1 to start.
It isn't about impression.
I'd put 'janitor' on my business card for all I really care.
I'm pretty sure Jonny Martin was Chief Internet Janitor in his previous role.
He cleaned the tubes so the sewage could flow.
-- Nathan Ward
-- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
Ok, let see. In several countries the use of the "title" engineer applies to people that achieved a certain technical degree, I'm not sure that applies uniformly but in Latin America using the engineer title without having achieved that degree is illegal. In other places such Italy it does not only require that you completed the technical degree, you also must achieve certain level of certifications. Here in the US there are some particular type of "engineers" for which the title is regulated, for example "civil engineer". The IEEE says: "The title, Engineer, and its derivatives should be reserved for those individuals whose education and experience qualify them to practice in a manner that protects public safety. Strict use of the title serves the interest of both the IEEE-USA and the public by providing a recognized designation by which those qualified to practice engineering may be identified. The education and experience needed for the title, Engineer, is evidenced by" - Graduation with an Engineering degree from an ABET/EAC accredited program of engineering (or equivalent*), coupled with sufficient experience in the field in which the term, Engineer, is used; and/or - Licensure by any jurisdiction as a Professional Engineer. - A degree from a foreign institution (or the total education when one person holds a graduate degree in engineering but no accredited B.S. in engineering) can be evaluated through a service offered by ABET." Not sure if there similar regulations that apply in Canada. My .02 Jorge On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> wrote:
On 2010.03.30 23:20, Jorge Amodio wrote:
I'd say that probably around here for those like me that have been in operations/engineering management positions we don't give a squat about what title your biz card says you have, your actions and performance speak by themselves.
There are no kings around here so titles most of the time are worthless.
By asking what title may impress others is sort of a -1 to start.
It isn't about impression.
I'd put 'janitor' on my business card for all I really care.
I know what I love to do, and I know what I am great at. 10 years in the industry now. The only person who I try to impress is myself... by staying current on BCP and better ways to do things.
My curiosity has the best of me, so I am looking for opinions. You have one ;)
Those who know me know what I can do, and in reality, that is all I care about. I'm not out to impress anyone. I just want to be a good netizen like the rest.
Impression isn't what I'm after. What I'm curious about is the potential over-use of the term 'engineer'.
Cheers,
Steve
On 2010.03.30 23:34, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Ok, let see. In several countries the use of the "title" engineer applies to people that achieved a certain technical degree, I'm not sure that applies uniformly but in Latin America using the engineer title without having achieved that degree is illegal.
In other places such Italy it does not only require that you completed the technical degree, you also must achieve certain level of certifications.
Here in the US there are some particular type of "engineers" for which the title is regulated, for example "civil engineer".
The IEEE says:
"The title, Engineer, and its derivatives should be reserved for those individuals whose education and experience qualify them to practice in a manner that protects public safety. Strict use of the title serves the interest of both the IEEE-USA and the public by providing a recognized designation by which those qualified to practice engineering may be identified. The education and experience needed for the title, Engineer, is evidenced by" - Graduation with an Engineering degree from an ABET/EAC accredited program of engineering (or equivalent*), coupled with sufficient experience in the field in which the term, Engineer, is used; and/or - Licensure by any jurisdiction as a Professional Engineer. - A degree from a foreign institution (or the total education when one person holds a graduate degree in engineering but no accredited B.S. in engineering) can be evaluated through a service offered by ABET."
Not sure if there similar regulations that apply in Canada.
Cheers Jorge, This is pretty much what I was after. Thanks for digging it up for me. Steve
On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
"The title, Engineer, and its derivatives should be reserved for those individuals whose education and experience qualify them to practice in a manner that protects public safety. Strict use of the title serves
...fortunately for us (and CCIE's around the globe) running the Internet doesn't involve much public trust. Does it? In a few states in the US, working for the same engineering firm for some number of years (usually 6 or more) counts similarly as passing a state-administered professional engineering exam. It would be with some significant precedent, then, that a job or other professional experience does indeed equate to state-sponsored public trust. So, back to Steve's first question:
How does the ops community feel about using this designation?
If you've been doing it for a while, and not been chased out, I would argue there is ample precedent to support don'ing the title. I guess the sticky-bits here include, potentially, a derth of colleges and graduate study calling itself "network engineering." Failing that, perhaps nanog-l could take a vote: Does Steve deserve the title of Network Train Driver, list? -Tk
On 2010.03.30 23:50, Anton Kapela wrote:
On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
"The title, Engineer, and its derivatives should be reserved for those individuals whose education and experience qualify them to practice in a manner that protects public safety. Strict use of the title serves
...fortunately for us (and CCIE's around the globe) running the Internet doesn't involve much public trust. Does it?
In a few states in the US, working for the same engineering firm for some number of years (usually 6 or more) counts similarly as passing a state-administered professional engineering exam. It would be with some significant precedent, then, that a job or other professional experience does indeed equate to state-sponsored public trust.
So, back to Steve's first question:
How does the ops community feel about using this designation?
If you've been doing it for a while, and not been chased out, I would argue there is ample precedent to support don'ing the title. I guess the sticky-bits here include, potentially, a derth of colleges and graduate study calling itself "network engineering."
Failing that, perhaps nanog-l could take a vote:
Does Steve deserve the title of Network Train Driver, list?
Not acceptable. I do not want this. I read and review messages and documents from people who have *much* more experience than I do every single day, and whom I respect to the n'th degree. This isn't a vote count. I am _not_ an engineer, and do not need or desire the title. Thanks anyway though ;) Steve
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Not acceptable. I do not want this.
I read and review messages and documents from people who have *much* more experience than I do every single day, and whom I respect to the n'th degree.
This isn't a vote count. I am _not_ an engineer, and do not need or desire the title.
Thanks anyway though ;)
Steve
Back at IBM ('64 to '71) we were officially called "Customer Engineer". When the 'System 360' was released, it was changed to "Field Engineer".<s> --Michael
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:34:58PM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote:
Ok, let see. In several countries the use of the "title" engineer applies to people that achieved a certain technical degree, I'm not sure that applies uniformly but in Latin America using the engineer title without having achieved that degree is illegal.
when i worked for LSUC, the equivilent of a state bar association, i think, i was asked to dream up a new title for my role, and asked for "Network Architect". it was rejected for the reason that "it bestowes upon you a professional designation for which you are not qualified." i think my title ended up being "Systems and Network Engineering Manager". -- Jim Mercer jim@reptiles.org +92 336 520-4504 "I'm Prime Minister of Canada, I live here and I'm going to take a leak." - Lester Pearson in 1967, during a meeting between himself and President Lyndon Johnson, whose Secret Service detail had taken over Pearson's cottage retreat. At one point, a Johnson guard asked Pearson, "Who are you and where are you going?"
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:12:46 -0400 Jim Mercer <jim@reptiles.org> wrote:
i think my title ended up being "Systems and Network Engineering Manager".
So you were the SANE Manager? -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
On 3/30/10 8:26 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
I'd put 'janitor' on my business card for all I really care.
Or on your T-shirt? Like the ones from NANOG 42 that read "Custodians of the Internet"? -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:20:25PM -0500, Jorge Amodio said:
I'd say that probably around here for those like me that have been in operations/engineering management positions we don't give a squat about what title your biz card says you have, your actions and performance speak by themselves.
There are no kings around here so titles most of the time are worthless.
By asking what title may impress others is sort of a -1 to start.
But you are wrong. Titles do speak and impress just not how you might expect. Having a 'jokey' title signifies to other equally free-to-operate-within-the-org people that you have the necessary freedom to act outside the standard procedures when required. If you get away with "chief evangelist" (as Mike Shaver had for a while at mozilla), not to mention his other card which was "international incident" (possibly referring to a crypto export situation?), you obviously have some independent (freedom from?) authority and autonomy. I managed to have Grizzled Internet Prospector on my card for a while at my previous firm. It was as accurate as anything else I could put and indicated to my peers that I was actually, well, an owner, eschewing a stuffy "CEO" or "COO" title. (I had other sub companies with stuffy titles on them in case someone outside the clued area needed to be placated.) Another friend had "minister of fear" as his title at a network security firm. At an exodus sponsored event which featured both Sun's XML accelerator platform (?) and Bruce Schneier (the main attraction), he was originally banned due to his joke title. The local industry slapped back through the clued peoples' oldboys-n-girls network, and they backpedalled and he was admitted at the last minute. It bit the exodus event organizer in the ass hard, and had her eating crow for him in front of 30 of his peers at the event, and handing over a free signed copy of Schneier's book. He really gained notoriety and street cred from the situation, as silly as it was. Besting the established order is worth something in most circles, still. (Google anyone?) She obviously didnt understand the new business rules in effect: the jokey title signified that titles didnt matter, reputation and ability did. Being able to have a joke title indicates you dont need a real one. And so they're important in a reverse-psychology kind of way :) /kc (grizzled tube plumber)
Cheers Jorge
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> wrote:
Hi all,
This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered.
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
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).
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
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.
Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it.
Steve
-- Ken Chase - ken@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front St. W.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14:52PM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Hi all,
This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered.
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
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).
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
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.
Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it.
Steve
well, there are communities which use the term "engineer" as a term of art adn frown on this group co-opting the term "network enginer" ... maybe you really don't want to go there (even if it is what you do). I've used memorable terms in the past, gadfly, plumber, chief bottle-washer, and have seen goddess, evangelist, and more. --bill
On 2010.03.30 23:22, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14:52PM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Hi all,
This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered.
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
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).
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
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.
Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it.
Steve
well, there are communities which use the term "engineer" as a term of art adn frown on this group co-opting the term "network enginer" ... maybe you really don't want to go there (even if it is what you do).
I've used memorable terms in the past, gadfly, plumber, chief bottle-washer, and have seen goddess, evangelist, and more.
heh. Plumber is good. Electrician would be better considering I'm about 120 hours away from writing my resi ticket ;) I did not mean to initiate a thread that turns into a joke. I'm quite serious. I guess I'm curious to get an understanding from others who work in a small environment that have no choice but to 'classify' themselves. Steve
On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
I did not mean to initiate a thread that turns into a joke. I'm quite serious. I guess I'm curious to get an understanding from others who work in a small environment that have no choice but to 'classify' themselves.
Unless we're talking about converting hydrocarbons to heat/energy or driving trains, the term Engineer is over-applied. To borrow an old phrase, What's in a Title? -Tk
Steve Bertrand wrote:
I did not mean to initiate a thread that turns into a joke. I'm quite serious. I guess I'm curious to get an understanding from others who work in a small environment that have no choice but to 'classify' themselves.
When I was in a similar role and situation to yourself my cards said "network manager". These days, working in an organisation big enough to restructure weekly, I removed the title from my business cards - now I have a blank space where I can write one in if I really *need* it. But mostly I don't. aj
On 3/30/2010 22:44, Alastair Johnson wrote:
Steve Bertrand wrote:
I did not mean to initiate a thread that turns into a joke. I'm quite serious. I guess I'm curious to get an understanding from others who work in a small environment that have no choice but to 'classify' themselves.
When I was in a similar role and situation to yourself my cards said "network manager".
These days, working in an organisation big enough to restructure weekly, I removed the title from my business cards - now I have a blank space where I can write one in if I really *need* it. But mostly I don't.
I've done that--the most useful information (IMHO) is connector (telno or email) and reason why they want to contact me. -- Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On 3/30/2010 22:14, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Hi all,
This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered.
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
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).
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
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.
Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it.
When the University I worked for went all touchy-feely and told us to pick titles for ourselves I wanted to use "Savant". They wouldn't let me, so I tried "Jack Of All Trades". Vetoed. So I just stayed with the cards I had that said Associate Director for Telecommunications and Computers. Which is about as void of meaning then and now as anything I have ever heard of. -- Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
On 2010.03.30 23:30, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 3/30/2010 22:14, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Hi all,
This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered.
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
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).
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
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.
Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it.
When the University I worked for went all touchy-feely and told us to pick titles for ourselves I wanted to use "Savant".
They wouldn't let me, so I tried "Jack Of All Trades".
Vetoed.
So I just stayed with the cards I had that said Associate Director for Telecommunications and Computers.
Which is about as void of meaning then and now as anything I have ever heard of.
heh. The feedback that I've received off-list has led me to believe that I just need to scratch the title, and have my name and number. Who cares what I do. Those who want to call/email me will have a purpose for doing so anyway ;) Steve
that's right Steve, as I said before, what you do and how you do it, and in particular what do you contribute to the networking community will speak much better of yourself than any title you can imagine. Do you think that folks like Tim Berners-Lee, Vint Cerf, Jon Postel, etc, etc, need a title ? Focus on the substance not on the appearance. J
The feedback that I've received off-list has led me to believe that I just need to scratch the title, and have my name and number.
Who cares what I do. Those who want to call/email me will have a purpose for doing so anyway ;)
Steve
On 2010.03.30 23:47, Jorge Amodio wrote:
that's right Steve, as I said before, what you do and how you do it, and in particular what do you contribute to the networking community will speak much better of yourself than any title you can imagine.
Do you think that folks like Tim Berners-Lee, Vint Cerf, Jon Postel, etc, etc, need a title ?
Focus on the substance not on the appearance.
grazie, I capire. My post was two fold... and I received a *lot* of off-list feedback that I'll have to respond to tomorrow. Generally, I know that a title isn't relevant, especially in the small little area that I'm in. I was just very curious, as it came up in discussion today. I like to think that I do everything possible to do my part. To be honest, I have as much or more interest in protecting other ASs than I do our own clients (shhh ;) Thanks very much Jorge. Although this was a fast-paced thread that was very entertaining, you've enlightened me. Cheers, Steve -- new sig - stevieb - senior master of disaster - wrongly null-routing client bgp communities, and allowing x-vlan sniffing since 1998
What I find most amusing in the field of networking is the terms and titles various companies place upon them. Titles like "Infrastructure specialist", "Network analyst", and "Senior Specialist" often have me giggling as to the real meaning/position in a job posting. I think the funniest postings I see are the ones where obviously someone in a HR role posts the position and lumps together different aspects of the role trying to be filled, such as "Cisco MS Exchange expert" or "Firewall SQL Expert". Needless to say those are not titles I would be boasting about or would care to advertise. In short the last business card I handed out simply had the title MIS Dept. Its hard enough to explain some of the aspects of network engineering to my wife let alone a description of such on a business card. On one occasion my mother in law asked if I could get a discount on large amounts of food, I asked why she thought I could do such and her reply was "well you work with Sysco, a food services company"..... Needless to say it took a bit of time to explain that sysco was not cisco. Perhaps a brief description on the back of the card? Lol... Regards. -Joe
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:19:26 -0400 "Joe" <jbfixurpc@gmail.com> wrote:
short the last business card I handed out simply had the title MIS Dept. Its
Heh. Reminds me of the place I worked where the least knowledgeable, least experienced and least liked person was put in charge of MIS. If anyone had actually liked the guy they would have explained why signing all his emails as "MIS Manager" was a bad idea. Too funny. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
On 3/30/2010 22:35, Steve Bertrand wrote:
The feedback that I've received off-list has led me to believe that I just need to scratch the title, and have my name and number.
Who cares what I do. Those who want to call/email me will have a purpose for doing so anyway ;)
Post University I identify myself by name, three phone numbers and email address. Ifv I still carried a pager, its number might have been there, although when I last carried a pager, the telephone system we had would page me if somebody left a message. -- Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered.
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
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).
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
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.
Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it.
When the University I worked for went all touchy-feely and told us to pick titles for ourselves I wanted to use "Savant".
They wouldn't let me, so I tried "Jack Of All Trades".
Vetoed.
So I just stayed with the cards I had that said Associate Director for Telecommunications and Computers.
Which is about as void of meaning then and now as anything I have ever heard of.
I actually held the title "Super Security Engineer" at my previous company according to my business cards. Now that I think of it, I need new business cards, any ideas? :)
Larry Sheldon wrote:
So I just stayed with the cards I had that said Associate Director for Telecommunications and Computers.
That's nice, so you can call yourself a Director ;-) What's up with the overuse of the term "President" in job titles, Vice President of Engineering, Product Management... often these people appear to not have any real corporate presidential powers... Maybe it's because receptionists and secretaries are now called office managers and so the managers feel their title has become inflated. I agree with the misuse of the term "Engineer" in IT. I think it should only be used for the "official" protected title of civil engineer. Which I believe is a very respectable job. Sad but true, in IT too many people have some form of engineer in their job title but are almost totally clueless.
Which is about as void of meaning then and now as anything I have ever heard of.
What happened to titles such as programmer (or code monkey if your prefer, maybe a PC issue?), network administrator, systems administrator, systems analyst, information analyst? Greetings, Jeroen
I agree with the misuse of the term "Engineer" in IT. I think it should only be used for the "official" protected title of civil engineer. Which I believe is a very respectable job. Sad but true, in IT too many people have some form of engineer in their job title but are almost totally clueless.
[ X-Operational_Content = 0 ] Can't resist. When I read your message it brought back to my memory a nice guy that used to work for me eons ago, very clever, smart and hands-on, he had a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology. One day, we had some sort of outage and I found him in the "computer room" sitting in front of one of the racks with some routing gear, I still have that image in my memory he looked like he was doing some sort of group therapy with the routers, I couldn't resist and told him "Hey Joey, Freud won't help you, get your butt off of the chair and follow the default procedure, power cycle the damn beast". There were also several folks with various degrees in Physics, experts on blowing up stuff. Again, IMHO, in this field a title may help or may provide others a relative idea where you fit in a large organization, or help the HR folks know how much to put on your paycheck or what kind of benefits/perks go associated with that level, but I still believe that substance is more important. Regards Jorge COOK Chief Old Operations Knucklehead
On 3/31/10 8:14 PM, "Jorge Amodio" <jmamodio@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with the misuse of the term "Engineer" in IT. I think it should only be used for the "official" protected title of civil engineer. Which I believe is a very respectable job. Sad but true, in IT too many people have some form of engineer in their job title but are almost totally clueless.
[ X-Operational_Content = 0 ]
Can't resist.
When I read your message it brought back to my memory a nice guy that used to work for me eons ago, very clever, smart and hands-on, he had a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology.
One day, we had some sort of outage and I found him in the "computer room" sitting in front of one of the racks with some routing gear, I still have that image in my memory he looked like he was doing some sort of group therapy with the routers, I couldn't resist and told him "Hey Joey, Freud won't help you, get your butt off of the chair and follow the default procedure, power cycle the damn beast".
There were also several folks with various degrees in Physics, experts on blowing up stuff.
Again, IMHO, in this field a title may help or may provide others a relative idea where you fit in a large organization, or help the HR folks know how much to put on your paycheck or what kind of benefits/perks go associated with that level, but I still believe that substance is more important.
Regards Jorge COOK Chief Old Operations Knucklehead
HAH! My self chosen job title is Chief Pest, Annoyer of Developers, and Destroyer of Misconceptions. All in all, it's fairly accurate. Among other things I manage a team of developers, I often have to disabuse management of some silly idea or other, and frequently have to play gladfly to enable change.
-----Original Message----- From: Jimi Thompson [mailto:jimi.thompson@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:20 AM To: Jorge Amodio; Jeroen van Aart Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Finding content in your job title On 3/31/10 8:14 PM, "Jorge Amodio" <jmamodio@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with the misuse of the term "Engineer" in IT. I think it should only be used for the "official" protected title of civil engineer. Which I believe is a very respectable job. Sad but true, in IT too many people have some form of engineer in their job title but are almost totally clueless.
[ X-Operational_Content = 0 ]
Can't resist.
When I read your message it brought back to my memory a nice guy that used to work for me eons ago, very clever, smart and hands-on, he had a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology.
One day, we had some sort of outage and I found him in the "computer room" sitting in front of one of the racks with some routing gear, I still have that image in my memory he looked like he was doing some sort of group therapy with the routers, I couldn't resist and told him "Hey Joey, Freud won't help you, get your butt off of the chair and follow the default procedure, power cycle the damn beast".
There were also several folks with various degrees in Physics, experts on blowing up stuff.
Again, IMHO, in this field a title may help or may provide others a relative idea where you fit in a large organization, or help the HR folks know how much to put on your paycheck or what kind of benefits/perks go associated with that level, but I still believe that substance is more important.
Regards Jorge COOK Chief Old Operations Knucklehead
HAH! My self chosen job title is Chief Pest, Annoyer of Developers, and Destroyer of Misconceptions. All in all, it's fairly accurate. Among other things I manage a team of developers, I often have to disabuse management of some silly idea or other, and > frequently have to play gladfly to enable change.
When I call a company and ask for an accountant, I get the companies accountant, when I ask for an account manager, that's what I get. That's what titles are, and that's why they are important. I know the type of person I need to talk to, but I don't know who it is I need to talk to. Its why standardization in titles is good, when I go digging through my pile of business cards looking for the Network Engineer/Architect at company X, I'll probably not notice a custom/weird title. It does not define you, it does not make you any less or more important, it does however answer the question of "Who is responsible for..." which I believe to be extremely valuable. Then again, I might be weird. ~J
On Friday 02 April 2010 12:25:12 pm Justin Horstman wrote:
[Your title] does however answer the question of "Who is responsible for..." which I believe to be extremely valuable.
Then again, I might be weird.
No, this is exactly how 'business at large' uses the idea of title. In some companies, Official Title is used to determine salary (or even whether you're an exempt employee or not). And the company's bylaws may invest particular responsibilities and privileges on particular people by title. Secretary, for instance, is a particular title used in bylaws for a particular purpose for an officer of the company. When troubleshooting an operational issue, which do you prefer: traceroutes with useful interface names (so you can locate them) or cutesy names? Would you prefer (for your eyes, of course; you do run split DNS, right?) POS1/0 on a 7206 used for PE in the data center be called pos1-0.dc1-7206- pe.example.com, or bhp.example.com (BHP=Big Honking Pipe)? I know, you might prefer bhp.example.com for other people's eyes, but suppose you didn't name it that, you're new on the job, the guy who named it is not available, and you are having problems. Then which is your preference? I guess what you want your title to be depends on what your role actually is in the company, and whether someone outside (or someone inside who doesn't know you) can find you when they need to using the company's directory or a second or third-hand business card (yes, I've done that too, make a photocopy or e-copy of a business card, and then pass it along to a third-party (after getting card holder's permission to do so) as a contact). Or when putting a card under the acrylic sheeting on the tables in a local restaurant (I've actually made useful connections reading the business cards on corkboards and under the Plexiglas at restaurants before). We have standardized abuse, postmaster, and webmaster e-mail aliases, too, and that works when you see a slow brute-forcer originating from somewhere, or someone has blackholed someone and their BGP announcements leak, or whatever. It's nice to get to the right person when you don't know the person, don't know the company, and don't have time to get 'into' the culture. So, I guess that your title should at least semi-adequately give your role to someone who is completely clueless about your role.
Lamar Owen wrote:
companies, Official Title is used to determine salary (or even whether you're an exempt employee or not). And the company's bylaws may invest particular
Unless I misread the laws regarding this, in CA at least you still have to earn ~$40/hr or more (it varies and last I read it was lowered a few $s) or more to be considered exempt, regardless of your job title
On 4/7/2010 13:39, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
companies, Official Title is used to determine salary (or even whether you're an exempt employee or not). And the company's bylaws may invest particular
Unless I misread the laws regarding this, in CA at least you still have to earn ~$40/hr or more (it varies and last I read it was lowered a few $s) or more to be considered exempt, regardless of your job title
When I was a manager out thee some years ago, you also had to have substantial control over your activities. -- Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/7/2010 13:39, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Unless I misread the laws regarding this, in CA at least you still have to earn ~$40/hr or more (it varies and last I read it was lowered a few $s) or more to be considered exempt, regardless of your job title
When I was a manager out thee some years ago, you also had to have substantial control over your activities.
Yes, and it has to be of a special "intellectual" nature (for lack of better terms). I would think just a fancy job title, but no duties to reflect it, would not stand a chance at all if the employee would legally challenge their supposedly exempt status. Anyways, http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/Glossary.asp?Button1=E#employee%20in%20the%20comp... explains it fairly well. "The employee's hourly rate of pay is not less than $41.00 [the rate in effect on September 19, 2000]". The rate according to their provided pdf is not less than $37.94 or not less than $79050.- annually. Regards, Jeroen
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
What happened to titles such as programmer (or code monkey if your prefer, maybe a PC issue?), network administrator, systems administrator, systems analyst, information analyst?
Those titles still exist, but after you read enough job postings for "network administrator", "network manager", or "network engineer" you might not remember what they meant to you originally because HR people are generally not tech-savvy, or jobs have to be posted in classification buckets that don't fit very well. I've seen more job postings than I care to count that asked for a "network engineer", but the closest duty the job actually called for was someone who knows how to manage Exchange and Active Directory. jms
I remember in the ol'days when everybody was fighting to have the "postmaster" title ... It was often associated with the possession of the root password, you had to feel the power !!! Cheers Jorge
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14:52PM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Hi all,
This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered.
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
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).
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
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.
Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it.
Steve
I solve that problem this way: 1 set of Business cards with "Senior System Architect", an arbitary title the company gave me at some point 1 set of Business cards with "Senior Monkey for almost everything" -- Regards, Ulf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-865-0204 You can find my resume at: http://www.Alameda.net/~ulf/resume.html
-----Original Message----- From: Steve Bertrand [mailto:steve@ibctech.ca] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:15 PM To: nanog@nanog.org >> nanog list Subject: Finding content in your job title
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.
I don't think it matters so much what you call yourself, but what job role are you filling in the corporate org chart? You might not be a degreed engineer but if you are serving as the company's "Network Engineer" then that is what you are. I would say that would go as long as the title is on a company business card and not a personal card. I would say that I would use the term "engineer" on a personal card only if I were an engineer in my field of practice by certification or degree. In a company, though, my title is the role I fill within the organization. I tend to prefer the "architect" designation mainly because it describes what I really do. I design the network, specify the equipment, get it all running, and am then happy to turn over the day to day operation to someone else provided there is a someone else to do it. My title within my organization is Senior Network Engineer but I personally see my role as Senior Network Architect and is what I would put on a personal card and is how I "self identify". George
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> wrote:
Hi all,
This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered.
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
My approach is not to put job title on the business cards. There's no need. :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 31/03/2010 08:32, Andrew Mulholland wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> wrote:
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
My approach is not to put job title on the business cards.
Totally agree. After my employer started changing their mind over whether we are programmers, analysts, officers, etc, I just dropped the title from the card. By the time I'm handing the card out, the recipient already knows my status. - -- Oliver Gorwits, Network and Telecommunications Group, Oxford University Computing Services -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuzxkkACgkQ2NPq7pwWBt4DkACfW5XU4l/bS1wfE/CmoZoL1We2 YgoAoLLPKvYjxfLMYNU2vICzDxef6Emp =7fL+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Steve Bertrand [mailto:steve@ibctech.ca] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:15 PM Subject: Finding content in your job title
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
How does the ops community feel about using this designation? Is it intrusive or offensive to those who hold real engineering degrees? I'm
Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it.
I have "Senior Network Engineer" as my title. I have an undergraduate degree in networked communications and management. When working some days or on some projects, like when I'm laying out a whole new datacenter for $EMPLOYER, I feel that I'm filling the role admirably. Other days, when I'm simply pushing paper or "stamping license plates" (small, repetitive tasks of little import) I don't feel that I really deserve the title. But then, if I had my druthers, I'd put "Chief Bit-mover" on my business card (the CIO's secretary put the kabash on when I tried it, citing something about executives not much liking it when non-officers put "Chief" anything on their cards... ;) ) -JFO
if it was not so long, and if jp biz processes were not so confusing to clueless gaijin, i would ask for "just another bozo on this bus" randy
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
Be careful where you get the examples to model yourself upon. For instance, you are in Canada and I think it is actually illegal to call yourself and engineer unless you are licenced. And as far as I know there is no licencing available for network engineers. Where I work, there is a distinction between the network designers who typically have CCIE certification, and the network operations roles which may or may not have certifications. The hot shot network guys are called 3rd level support. Speaking as someone who has often interviewed people, I think that job titles are pretty much inconsequential. --Michael Dillon Network Consultant
In article <r2i877585b01003310746z930ef004w54e76adc3ca334c@mail.gmail.com>, Michael Dillon <wavetossed@googlemail.com> writes
Be careful where you get the examples to model yourself upon. For instance, you are in Canada and I think it is actually illegal to call yourself and engineer unless you are licenced. And as far as I know there is no licencing available for network engineers.
Licenced by the Canadian authorities? Here in the UK we have "Institutes", such as IEEE, where membership can convey some authenticity to the title of 'Chartered Engineer'. But anyone can be a normal engineer (even people like me with a Masters in Engineering, but never bothered to apply to IEEE). -- Roland Perry
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/
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:14:52 EDT, Steve Bertrand said:
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
Our payroll system was overhauled a few years ago, and it now claims I'm an "IT Spec III", but provides for an alternate "working title". I couldn't get "Utility Infielder" on my business card, so I kept the business cards that still say "Computer Systems Senior Engineer". I don't go through cards very fast. ;) One of my cohorts prefers the term "Mutagen". :) I've had the occasional whinge from pedants that complain that 'Engineer' is a controlled term and the state should take action on my use of it, and I point out to them (a) not in my field, yet, and (b) it was the Commonwealth of Virginia that *gave* me the title so they should feel free to take it up with the guys in Richmond.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
I've had the occasional whinge from pedants that complain that 'Engineer' is a controlled term and the state should take action on my use of it, and I point out to them (a) not in my field, yet, and (b) it was the Commonwealth of Virginia that *gave* me the title so they should feel free to take it up with the guys in Richmond.
Good point. A title assigned by a government agency is probably most appropriate. Cheers, George Person of Interest
Perhaps the appropriate approach if the title is internet related is to call for a BoF at IETF, setup a WG to work on a standards titles draft, get it published as an RFC, vest the authority on IANA and start a PDP at ICANN to determine who can obtain and ware the title and how much has to pay for it. Now thinking it through, this may be something we can ask the ITU to do instead of trying to get into the internet standards and non-governance of the internet, I'm sure they will probably after a couple of years will come out with the pink book of titles recommendations that will be uniformly accepted and implemented around the world including developing countries. Need a beer Jorge On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:32 PM, George Imburgia <nanog@armorfirewall.com> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
I've had the occasional whinge from pedants that complain that 'Engineer' is a controlled term and the state should take action on my use of it, and I point out to them (a) not in my field, yet, and (b) it was the Commonwealth of Virginia that *gave* me the title so they should feel free to take it up with the guys in Richmond.
Good point. A title assigned by a government agency is probably most appropriate.
Cheers, George Person of Interest
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Steve Bertrand wrote:
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
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).
Smaller shops might be more willing to let people choose their own titles for their business cards. A friend presented himself as "Lord of the Underworld" when he ran his own company. At my previous job, the title on my business card was either "network engineer" or "senior network engineer", and that was pretty accurate, in the sense that most people here would probably agree that the "network engineer" is a pretty vague title that covers many different responsibilities. Bigger companies often put a framework of job classifications and titles in place to simplify HR/administrative items like salary ranges and reporting structures. I currently work at a larger organization where my business card says "network analyst" even though I work in the network engineering group, and my job classification is "systems programmer IV" even though I don't do any systems programming. I don't consider writing the occasional shell/perl/python script to be systems programming :)
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
I don't hold any certs at the moment either, but I can prove my worth to an organization through my work experience and business knowledge. The "are certs worth it" horse has been pretty well beaten to death several times here and on other forums.
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.
"Engineering" implies different things to different people. I don't worry about offending a degreed engineer any more than I worry about offending someone who drives a train. I had a boss at a previous job herd all of the systems and network engineers in the conference room and give us the "YOU ARE NOT ENGINEERS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ENGINEERING DEGREE" browbeating after some sort of an outage. He didn't last very long :) jms
Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> writes:
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
Hey, network engineer is good. Some time back someone gave me the title "senior executioner security engineer". They even send a document to a customer with this title. Jens -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink@guug.de | ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did that mean that your job was to ensure that the guillotine was sharpened and engineered securely? -- ---------------------- Brian Raaen Network Engineer braaen@zcorum.com On Wednesday 31 March 2010, Jens Link wrote:
Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> writes:
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
Hey, network engineer is good. Some time back someone gave me the title "senior executioner security engineer". They even send a document to a customer with this title.
Jens -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink@guug.de | ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 3/30/2010 8:14 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
We exchange business cards to help the other person know some things about you that are relevant. The string of text that we call title can tell them something of your responsibilities, knowledge, skills, accomplishments, or the like. It's a short string, so you have to choose carefully. As noted, some words in a title are formal terms of art, with restrictions on their application. "Therapist" requires a license in most states; etc. So you have to balance between benefit to the reader, corporate culture and rules, and legal/formal restrictions. Sometimes, your official company title isn't very helpful for this purpose and sometimes it is. Some companies allow or encourage whimsy; personally I find those usually to tell me that the company is silly, but sometimes it communicates a sense of fresh corporate culture. If you get to choose the text, decide what is most important for others to know about you from that card. Consider it from their perspective, not yours. Assume the card has been passed to a third person who hasn't met you and doesn't get information from the intermediary. Or that the person who got it looks at it 6 months later. Does reading the text for title tell them something that they will find helpful to know? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Finding content in my job title... hmm maybe I can change mine to 'Gopher'. (Go-pher, Go Fer, as in Going For, to get, fetch...) Speak to me in 'engineer-ese' : (functionality) : I interpret and 'go for' the hardware that fills the requirement. Come to think of it maybe that's a good name for a corporation; Gopher IT. (Ducks back down hole avoiding various projectiles) ~.~ Best regards, Larry E. Stites Critical Asset Manager Northern California Networks, Inc. (Gopher IT, Inc?) .............................. on 3/30/10 8:14 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Hi all,
This is perhaps a rather silly question, but one that I'd like to have answered.
I'm young in the game, and over the years I've imagined numerous job titles that should go on my business card. They went from cool, to high-priority, to plain unimaginable.
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).
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
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.
Instead of acting like I'm trying to sell myself out, I'll leave out what I actually do and ask those who sig themselves with 'network engineer' what they do day-to-day to acquire that title, and if they feel comfortable with having it.
Steve
~.~ Best regards, Larry E. Stites Acquisitions and Sales Northern California Networks, Inc. CA LIC#04 SR KH 100-484111 Nevada City, Calif. 95959 cell 530 320 4194 ~ land 530 265 2588
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> wrote: [ snip ]
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
How does the ops community feel about using this designation?
FWIW, I was Commodore of Infrastructure when I worked for the President of The World. Hope that's helpful. :-) Best, -M< -- Martin Hannigan martin@theicelandguy.com p: +16178216079 Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
On Apr 7, 2010, at 4:28 32PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> wrote:
[ snip ]
For instance, I like to present myself as a 'network engineer'. I have never taken formal education, don't hold any certifications (well, since 2001), and can't necessarily prove my worth.
How does the ops community feel about using this designation?
FWIW, I was Commodore of Infrastructure when I worked for the President of The World.
Way back when, an organization I know of decided to "regularize" its titles and insisted that the computer center staff suggest proper titles. They didn't much like "Bit Pusher" or "Telecommunications Bit Pusher", but finally gave up when one woman insisted that her proper title was "Empress of the 8th Floor". --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
participants (37)
-
Alastair Johnson -
Andrew Mulholland -
Anton Kapela -
Beavis -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Brian Raaen -
D'Arcy J.M. Cain -
Dave CROCKER -
George Bonser -
George Imburgia -
Jay Hennigan -
Jens Link -
Jeroen van Aart -
Jim Mercer -
Jimi Thompson -
Joe -
Jorge Amodio -
Justin Horstman -
Justin M. Streiner -
Ken Chase -
Lamar Owen -
Larry Sheldon -
Larry Stites -
Laurens Vets -
Leo Bicknell -
Martin Hannigan -
Michael Dillon -
Michael Painter -
Nathan Ward -
Oliver Gorwits -
Olsen, Jason -
Randy Bush -
Roland Perry -
Steve Bertrand -
Steven Bellovin -
Ulf Zimmermann -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu