5 ms·

The Iron Ring is mostly symbolic and a tradition, but protection of public is the whole idea behind the Professional Engineer licenses in a lot of countries (I'

by auxym 10y ago

The Iron Ring is mostly symbolic and a tradition, but protection of public is the whole idea behind the Professional Engineer licenses in a lot of countries (I'm mostly familiar with Canada). Unfortunately, laws seem awefully traditional and outdated, and at least some of the system has turned into a form of rent seeking. Even as a mechanical engineer, most of my work is not really considered as engineering work to the letter of the law, because the law was written in the 1960s with mostly civil works in mind. I get the feeling it's either going to take a long time or a huge catastrophy for legislators to catch up to licensing for professional software work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_en...

throwanem 10y ago
Do we need legislators and regulators to tell us to do our work with due care for those whose lives we affect in so doing? There's a role for them, to be sure. But as you say, and as we see from the history of other disciplines, that role is generally after the fact. We can, and I think must, ourselves create professional societies which can develop codes of ethical conduct and put incentives in place to uphold them. To a certain extent, that comes after the fact, too. But we're at the very least rapidly approaching a sufficiency of horrible examples from which to derive salutary lessons. I'd like to see us develop a sense of professional culture, as an industry, which gives us to think long and cautiously in those cases where we might produce yet another.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > Do we need legislators and regulators to tell us to do our work with due care for those whose lives we affect in so doing? We do, for our own protection. Doing so strikes the weapon from the hands of our managers - they can't push us into doing unethical work that easily because they know we're bound by law to refuse it. This is a case of Schelling-style strategy, where limiting your choice/freedom actually boosts your bargaining power.
- michaelt 10y ago
  Do we need legislators and regulators to tell us to do our work with due care for those whose lives we affect in so doing? Easier to tell your boss "We have to do this the expensive quality way, because that's the law" than to tell them "We have to do it the expensive quality way, because I say so" - especially if he's used to be the one giving the orders.
devoply 10y ago
Management does not nor will they ever want to pay for that. That's enough for them, the managerial class, to make sure something like this never happens. As it is they already complain about shortage of cheap factory workers, I mean software engineers, that they can exploit. So you really think they want scarcity in that supply? The end issue is not the code monkey, that's doing the work. It's the generals ordering those things to be done. They need to be reigned in.
- auxym 10y ago
  Here is how it works in traditional engineering: 1. Works that potentially affect public security need to be approved by licensed Proffessional Engineers. 2. Therefore, businesses and managers need to be hire Professional Engineers, or be punished by law. 3. Professional Engineers are held to an ethical code of conduct, else they lose their license.
  - VLM 10y ago
    There are some important additional steps, in that mgmt can't just hire any bum off the street to be a fall guy psuedo-P.E.. There is a mutually accepted and understood system where the very boring and static profession can be verified by mere years of experience (all jobs being similar) and a test no one seriously argues about based on what everyone agrees is very typical work for a P.E. I can't even begin to imagine the sheer flamewar load even thinking about a "professional programmer" certification would cause. I always liked the idea of an apprenticeship - journeyman - master system. It sidesteps the theoretical definition of what is a masters work by simply having existing masters vote to see if you make the cut, or not. Master level work in the field seems like it should be inherently different in the center of the CRUD app universe vs the center of the financial universe vs the center of the aerospace universe, for example.
    - auxym 10y ago
      In Canada, the test required to be passed to obtain the PE license does not have a single question concerning actual matters or competency. Rather, it concerns the legal framework, the deontology, the ethics and the responsibilities of the profession. The obligation of competency is part of the Deontological Code. Or at least, so it is in Quebec. The Engineer (note that Engineer is a legally reserved title in Quebec, rather than "Professional Engineer" in most other places) is obligated to perform mandates only if he is competent do to them. It is his own resposibility to make sure he's competent. If he is later shown to have performed work for which he was incompetent, he is liable to fines and/or to have his license revoked temporarily or permanently. The PE licensing system here also requires a certain period (3 years) under which the EIT (or jr engineer in QC) must work under the direct supervision and direction of a licensed PE, before applying to obtain his PE license. This is similar to the apprenticeship system you propose, from what I understand.

by auxym 10y ago

throwanem 10y ago

Do we need legislators and regulators to tell us to do our work with due care for those whose lives we affect in so doing? There's a role for them, to be sure. But as you say, and as we see from the history of other disciplines, that role is generally after the fact. We can, and I think must, ourselves create professional societies which can develop codes of ethical conduct and put incentives in place to uphold them. To a certain extent, that comes after the fact, too. But we're at the very least rapidly approaching a sufficiency of horrible examples from which to derive salutary lessons. I'd like to see us develop a sense of professional culture, as an industry, which gives us to think long and cautiously in those cases where we might produce yet another.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
> Do we need legislators and regulators to tell us to do our work with due care for those whose lives we affect in so doing? We do, for our own protection. Doing so strikes the weapon from the hands of our managers - they can't push us into doing unethical work that easily because they know we're bound by law to refuse it. This is a case of Schelling-style strategy, where limiting your choice/freedom actually boosts your bargaining power.
michaelt 10y ago
Do we need legislators and regulators to tell us to do our work with due care for those whose lives we affect in so doing? Easier to tell your boss "We have to do this the expensive quality way, because that's the law" than to tell them "We have to do it the expensive quality way, because I say so" - especially if he's used to be the one giving the orders.

devoply 10y ago

Management does not nor will they ever want to pay for that. That's enough for them, the managerial class, to make sure something like this never happens. As it is they already complain about shortage of cheap factory workers, I mean software engineers, that they can exploit. So you really think they want scarcity in that supply? The end issue is not the code monkey, that's doing the work. It's the generals ordering those things to be done. They need to be reigned in.

auxym 10y ago
Here is how it works in traditional engineering: 1. Works that potentially affect public security need to be approved by licensed Proffessional Engineers. 2. Therefore, businesses and managers need to be hire Professional Engineers, or be punished by law. 3. Professional Engineers are held to an ethical code of conduct, else they lose their license.
- VLM 10y ago
  There are some important additional steps, in that mgmt can't just hire any bum off the street to be a fall guy psuedo-P.E.. There is a mutually accepted and understood system where the very boring and static profession can be verified by mere years of experience (all jobs being similar) and a test no one seriously argues about based on what everyone agrees is very typical work for a P.E. I can't even begin to imagine the sheer flamewar load even thinking about a "professional programmer" certification would cause. I always liked the idea of an apprenticeship - journeyman - master system. It sidesteps the theoretical definition of what is a masters work by simply having existing masters vote to see if you make the cut, or not. Master level work in the field seems like it should be inherently different in the center of the CRUD app universe vs the center of the financial universe vs the center of the aerospace universe, for example.
  - auxym 10y ago
    In Canada, the test required to be passed to obtain the PE license does not have a single question concerning actual matters or competency. Rather, it concerns the legal framework, the deontology, the ethics and the responsibilities of the profession. The obligation of competency is part of the Deontological Code. Or at least, so it is in Quebec. The Engineer (note that Engineer is a legally reserved title in Quebec, rather than "Professional Engineer" in most other places) is obligated to perform mandates only if he is competent do to them. It is his own resposibility to make sure he's competent. If he is later shown to have performed work for which he was incompetent, he is liable to fines and/or to have his license revoked temporarily or permanently. The PE licensing system here also requires a certain period (3 years) under which the EIT (or jr engineer in QC) must work under the direct supervision and direction of a licensed PE, before applying to obtain his PE license. This is similar to the apprenticeship system you propose, from what I understand.