Re: "Engineer" (Was: Tech contact for Qwest?)
David Brouda <david@brouda.com> wrote:
Now, I have mentioned three key words: engineer, professional, and ethics. As a student of engineering, I believe that these three words go hand-in-hand.
The facts that somebody is being professional, educated and ethical does not guarantee that he has any idea of what he is doing. The catch is that a clueless person is generally unware that he's clueless, so he can be quite eithcal and professional in what he thinks he is doing. Watch the hordes of ATM zealots - many of them with very impressive credentials. Does not make their "contribution" any more worthwhile. --vadim
On 08/22/99, Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com> wrote:
David Brouda <david@brouda.com> wrote:
Now, I have mentioned three key words: engineer, professional, and ethics. As a student of engineering, I believe that these three words go hand-in-hand.
The facts that somebody is being professional, educated and ethical does not guarantee that he has any idea of what he is doing. The catch is that a clueless person is generally unware that he's clueless, so he can be quite eithcal and professional in what he thinks he is doing. Watch the hordes of ATM zealots - many of them with very impressive credentials. Does not make their "contribution" any more worthwhile.
Yeah, but at least they have a code of ethics. Where'd ours go? ---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | OKINA MAKETSU IPPAI NO UISUKI, ONEGAI SHIMASU! | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
I think that most of us act as ethically as management permits. There's a reason why vendors bring an "engineer" along on sales calls; customers have a very solid understanding that nobody else (sales, marketing, etc) can be trusted. That's not to say every "engineer" is without ulterior motives, but they're virtually guaranteed to be the most ethical people you'll meet at any company. What happens when a civil engineer refuses to certify a bridge is safe? What happens when a network engineer refuses to certify a network will work? Why is there a difference, and what can we do about it? Stephen "Engineer" Sprunk Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE#3723 Network Consulting Engineer Cisco NSA Dallas, Texas, USA e-mail:ssprunk@cisco.com Pager: +1 800 365-4578 Empowering the Internet Generation ----- Original Message ----- From: J.D. Falk To: Vadim Antonov Cc: david@brouda.com ; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 10:48 Subject: Re: "Engineer" (Was: Tech contact for Qwest?) On 08/22/99, Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com> wrote:
David Brouda <david@brouda.com> wrote:
Now, I have mentioned three key words: engineer, professional, and
ethics.
As a student of engineering, I believe that these three words go hand-in-hand.
The facts that somebody is being professional, educated and ethical does not guarantee that he has any idea of what he is doing. The catch is that a clueless person is generally unware that he's clueless, so he can be quite eithcal and professional in what he thinks he is doing. Watch the hordes of ATM zealots - many of them with very impressive credentials. Does not make their "contribution" any more worthwhile.
Yeah, but at least they have a code of ethics. Where'd ours go? ---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | OKINA MAKETSU IPPAI NO UISUKI, ONEGAI SHIMASU! | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
It seems you are going out of trhe real problem's roots. Let's image someone is a real _network engeneer_, who can understand the problem (in the big backbone such as UUnet's or QWEST or simular IP backbone), and solve it. Do you think such engeneer would be interested in working as the _support boy_? I think - no. He'll found more interesting work, because he want to learn every day, to build something new, etc - he want to grow up as an engeneer. But if I image something strange and this young man will be hired as a _support engeneer_ - he have only 2 choices for the career. First is if he show himself as a bright engeneer solving any problems and able to understand the reasons of any complex failure - he'll run to Cisco and got CCIE diploma, than he'll find some more interesting work (even in the same company). In the best case he'll work as a _seniour network engeneer_ serving VIP customers, not more. Or he'll work as a _support engeneer_ for a few years - and loss the ability to investigate the really complex (and rare) failures and situations. There is the real problem for the ISP - you (ISP) need high skilled persons to understand the complex situations appeared once/year, but could not provide an interesting work and high salary to satisfy their professional (and career's) interests. It cause the every company to have 2 - 3 of the such people maximum. In the small company, the customers have a chance to contact them directly in case of high energency, in the big TELCO - no any chance at all. Just what we see here - if you get IP service from the huge international company, you got good service in case of the standard situations but could not resolve any nonstandard; if you'v got the service from the middle-size European company, you waste some time when you need every-days service, but you can easy contact high-skilled personal in case of emergency (I do not want to name here the companies we have experience with, but this example was picked up from the real life). I do not know if there is the real problem with the _where to found well skilled network ENGENEER's_ at all - may be it exists, may be not, in USA; but even if I found such engeneer (and if I was the ISP's CEO here) I face some other problem - how to pay him the salary and (!) the interesting job (because the interesting job is the kind of salary for the such people too - at least because it allow to learn more and promise the better carreer). On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:24:36 -0500 From: Stephen Sprunk <ssprunk@cisco.com> To: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: "Engineer" (Was: Tech contact for Qwest?)
I think that most of us act as ethically as management permits. There's a reason why vendors bring an "engineer" along on sales calls; customers have a very solid understanding that nobody else (sales, marketing, etc) can be trusted. That's not to say every "engineer" is without ulterior motives, but they're virtually guaranteed to be the most ethical people you'll meet at any company.
What happens when a civil engineer refuses to certify a bridge is safe? What happens when a network engineer refuses to certify a network will work? Why is there a difference, and what can we do about it?
Stephen "Engineer" Sprunk
Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE#3723 Network Consulting Engineer Cisco NSA Dallas, Texas, USA e-mail:ssprunk@cisco.com Pager: +1 800 365-4578 Empowering the Internet Generation
----- Original Message ----- From: J.D. Falk To: Vadim Antonov Cc: david@brouda.com ; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 10:48 Subject: Re: "Engineer" (Was: Tech contact for Qwest?)
On 08/22/99, Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com> wrote:
David Brouda <david@brouda.com> wrote:
Now, I have mentioned three key words: engineer, professional, and
ethics.
As a student of engineering, I believe that these three words go hand-in-hand.
The facts that somebody is being professional, educated and ethical does not guarantee that he has any idea of what he is doing. The catch is that a clueless person is generally unware that he's clueless, so he can be quite eithcal and professional in what he thinks he is doing. Watch the hordes of ATM zealots - many of them with very impressive credentials. Does not make their "contribution" any more worthwhile.
Yeah, but at least they have a code of ethics. Where'd ours go?
---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | OKINA MAKETSU IPPAI NO UISUKI, ONEGAI SHIMASU! | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
Aleksei Roudnev, Network Operations Center, Relcom, Moscow (+7 095) 194-19-95 (Network Operations Center Hot Line),(+7 095) 230-41-41, N 13729 (pager) (+7 095) 196-72-12 (Support), (+7 095) 194-33-28 (Fax)
What happens when a civil engineer refuses to certify a bridge is safe? What happens when a network engineer refuses to certify a network will work? Why is there a difference, and what can we do about it?
I'm not sure that's the right question. Here's the real question: What happens when a civil engineer certifies a bridge as safe, that isn't? He goes to jail and his license is revoked. He's barred from the field. What happens when a network engineer says a system will work that doesn't? There are no civil or criminal penalties. The PE process is a two-way street - you get the perks, but there are also consequences for misbehavior. Daniel L. Golding Sr. Internet Engineer Cypress Communications (and a degreed ME) -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 12:25 PM To: J.D. Falk Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: "Engineer" (Was: Tech contact for Qwest?) I think that most of us act as ethically as management permits. There's a reason why vendors bring an "engineer" along on sales calls; customers have a very solid understanding that nobody else (sales, marketing, etc) can be trusted. That's not to say every "engineer" is without ulterior motives, but they're virtually guaranteed to be the most ethical people you'll meet at any company. What happens when a civil engineer refuses to certify a bridge is safe? What happens when a network engineer refuses to certify a network will work? Why is there a difference, and what can we do about it? Stephen "Engineer" Sprunk Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE#3723 Network Consulting Engineer Cisco NSA Dallas, Texas, USA e-mail:ssprunk@cisco.com Pager: +1 800 365-4578 Empowering the Internet Generation ----- Original Message ----- From: J.D. Falk To: Vadim Antonov Cc: david@brouda.com ; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 10:48 Subject: Re: "Engineer" (Was: Tech contact for Qwest?) On 08/22/99, Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com> wrote:
David Brouda <david@brouda.com> wrote:
Now, I have mentioned three key words: engineer, professional, and
ethics.
As a student of engineering, I believe that these three words go hand-in-hand.
The facts that somebody is being professional, educated and ethical does not guarantee that he has any idea of what he is doing. The catch is that a clueless person is generally unware that he's clueless, so he can be quite eithcal and professional in what he thinks he is doing. Watch the hordes of ATM zealots - many of them with very impressive credentials. Does not make their "contribution" any more worthwhile.
Yeah, but at least they have a code of ethics. Where'd ours go? ---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | OKINA MAKETSU IPPAI NO UISUKI, ONEGAI SHIMASU! | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
How long is this thread going to last? D. At 12:53 PM 8/23/99 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
What happens when a civil engineer refuses to certify a bridge is safe? What happens when a network engineer refuses to certify a network will work? Why is there a difference, and what can we do about it?
I'm not sure that's the right question. Here's the real question: What happens when a civil engineer certifies a bridge as safe, that isn't? He goes to jail and his license is revoked. He's barred from the field.
What happens when a network engineer says a system will work that doesn't? There are no civil or criminal penalties. The PE process is a two-way street - you get the perks, but there are also consequences for misbehavior.
Daniel L. Golding Sr. Internet Engineer Cypress Communications (and a degreed ME)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 12:25 PM To: J.D. Falk Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: "Engineer" (Was: Tech contact for Qwest?)
I think that most of us act as ethically as management permits. There's a reason why vendors bring an "engineer" along on sales calls; customers have a very solid understanding that nobody else (sales, marketing, etc) can be trusted. That's not to say every "engineer" is without ulterior motives, but they're virtually guaranteed to be the most ethical people you'll meet at any company.
What happens when a civil engineer refuses to certify a bridge is safe? What happens when a network engineer refuses to certify a network will work? Why is there a difference, and what can we do about it?
Stephen "Engineer" Sprunk
Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE#3723 Network Consulting Engineer Cisco NSA Dallas, Texas, USA e-mail:ssprunk@cisco.com Pager: +1 800 365-4578 Empowering the Internet Generation
----- Original Message ----- From: J.D. Falk To: Vadim Antonov Cc: david@brouda.com ; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 10:48 Subject: Re: "Engineer" (Was: Tech contact for Qwest?)
On 08/22/99, Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com> wrote:
David Brouda <david@brouda.com> wrote:
Now, I have mentioned three key words: engineer, professional, and
ethics.
As a student of engineering, I believe that these three words go hand-in-hand.
The facts that somebody is being professional, educated and ethical does not guarantee that he has any idea of what he is doing. The catch is that a clueless person is generally unware that he's clueless, so he can be quite eithcal and professional in what he thinks he is doing. Watch the hordes of ATM zealots - many of them with very impressive credentials. Does not make their "contribution" any more worthwhile.
Yeah, but at least they have a code of ethics. Where'd ours go?
---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | OKINA MAKETSU IPPAI NO UISUKI, ONEGAI SHIMASU! | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
What's wrong about a good thread lasting long ? Darin Divinia wrote:
How long is this thread going to last?
D.
At 12:53 PM 8/23/99 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
What happens when a civil engineer refuses to certify a bridge is safe? What happens when a network engineer refuses to certify a network will work? Why is there a difference, and what can we do about it?
I'm not sure that's the right question. Here's the real question: What happens when a civil engineer certifies a bridge as safe, that isn't? He goes to jail and his license is revoked. He's barred from the field.
What happens when a network engineer says a system will work that doesn't? There are no civil or criminal penalties. The PE process is a two-way street - you get the perks, but there are also consequences for misbehavior.
Daniel L. Golding Sr. Internet Engineer Cypress Communications (and a degreed ME)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 12:25 PM To: J.D. Falk Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: "Engineer" (Was: Tech contact for Qwest?)
I think that most of us act as ethically as management permits. There's a reason why vendors bring an "engineer" along on sales calls; customers have a very solid understanding that nobody else (sales, marketing, etc) can be trusted. That's not to say every "engineer" is without ulterior motives, but they're virtually guaranteed to be the most ethical people you'll meet at any company.
What happens when a civil engineer refuses to certify a bridge is safe? What happens when a network engineer refuses to certify a network will work? Why is there a difference, and what can we do about it?
Stephen "Engineer" Sprunk
Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE#3723 Network Consulting Engineer Cisco NSA Dallas, Texas, USA e-mail:ssprunk@cisco.com Pager: +1 800 365-4578 Empowering the Internet Generation
----- Original Message ----- From: J.D. Falk To: Vadim Antonov Cc: david@brouda.com ; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 10:48 Subject: Re: "Engineer" (Was: Tech contact for Qwest?)
On 08/22/99, Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com> wrote:
David Brouda <david@brouda.com> wrote:
Now, I have mentioned three key words: engineer, professional, and
ethics.
As a student of engineering, I believe that these three words go hand-in-hand.
The facts that somebody is being professional, educated and ethical does not guarantee that he has any idea of what he is doing. The catch is that a clueless person is generally unware that he's clueless, so he can be quite eithcal and professional in what he thinks he is doing. Watch the hordes of ATM zealots - many of them with very impressive credentials. Does not make their "contribution" any more worthwhile.
Yeah, but at least they have a code of ethics. Where'd ours go?
---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | OKINA MAKETSU IPPAI NO UISUKI, ONEGAI SHIMASU! | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
You gotta be kidding. When was the last time that you talked to a sales engineer? Most of those (generalizing here, so obviously there are exceptions) aren't any good at engineering but have learned the buzzwords. There is a reason why they aren't doing systems work. People just come in all shapes. Some honest some not. Doesn't matter what proffession or title. Sales people generally don't really know enough to lie even when they do. Dirk On Mon, Aug 23, 1999 at 11:24:36AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I think that most of us act as ethically as management permits. There's a reason why vendors bring an "engineer" along on sales calls; customers have a very solid understanding that nobody else (sales, marketing, etc) can be trusted. That's not to say every "engineer" is without ulterior motives, but they're virtually guaranteed to be the most ethical people you'll meet at any company.
What happens when a civil engineer refuses to certify a bridge is safe? What happens when a network engineer refuses to certify a network will work? Why is there a difference, and what can we do about it?
Stephen "Engineer" Sprunk
Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE#3723 Network Consulting Engineer Cisco NSA Dallas, Texas, USA e-mail:ssprunk@cisco.com Pager: +1 800 365-4578 Empowering the Internet Generation
----- Original Message ----- From: J.D. Falk To: Vadim Antonov Cc: david@brouda.com ; nanog@merit.edu Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 10:48 Subject: Re: "Engineer" (Was: Tech contact for Qwest?)
On 08/22/99, Vadim Antonov <avg@kotovnik.com> wrote:
David Brouda <david@brouda.com> wrote:
Now, I have mentioned three key words: engineer, professional, and
ethics.
As a student of engineering, I believe that these three words go hand-in-hand.
The facts that somebody is being professional, educated and ethical does not guarantee that he has any idea of what he is doing. The catch is that a clueless person is generally unware that he's clueless, so he can be quite eithcal and professional in what he thinks he is doing. Watch the hordes of ATM zealots - many of them with very impressive credentials. Does not make their "contribution" any more worthwhile.
Yeah, but at least they have a code of ethics. Where'd ours go?
---------========== J.D. Falk <jdfalk@cybernothing.org> =========--------- | OKINA MAKETSU IPPAI NO UISUKI, ONEGAI SHIMASU! | ----========== http://www.cybernothing.org/jdfalk/home.html ==========----
participants (8)
-
Alex P. Rudnev -
Daniel Golding -
ddiviniaï¼ broadcast.com -
Dirk Harms-Merbitz -
J.D. Falk -
Stephen Sprunk -
Vadim Antonov -
Walter L