3 ms·

This is IMHO why programming/IT should be treated as a "real Engineering" in some cases, or at least have one of the devs (head of the project?) have a proper d

This is IMHO why programming/IT should be treated as a "real Engineering" in some cases, or at least have one of the devs (head of the project?) have a proper degree. I studied a different Engineering, and in multiple courses the emphasis was in the actual approval/signing. The only practical difference between a technician and the Engineer in many cases was that the Engineer could actually sign off the project (or not). And thus it was made very clear that signing a document like in this Workplace question would be a big deal, since the responsibility was theirs to make sure things were compliant.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Dylan16807 3y ago
> And thus it was made very clear that signing a document like in this Workplace question would be a big deal, since the responsibility was theirs to make sure things were compliant. It sounds like OP would have refused to sign this document if asked. So is that good for OP? Or is this a situation where not signing doesn't matter?
neilv 3y ago
My first real software engineering job came more from that tradition, where our division started as a startup of EEs and CEs, serving mil/aerospace/datacomm. So I started as a Software Technician I (and there was also a Technician II, before Engineer I). There were signoff matrices, etc. People were scrappy, making ambitious new things happen, but honest. Sheltered by lucky upbringing and early career experiences, I was shocked the first time I encountered someone in industry doing something dishonest. In the current "tech" industry, I'm no longer shocked, just frequently disappointed in what I see throughout much of the industry. I recently realized that some pretty ordinary tech ethics today is what, decades ago, was the stereotype of an "MBA". It was also a stereotype that "engineers" didn't trust "business people". Today, seems there's less cultural distinction between the groups, at least the stereotypes.
- kibwen 3y ago
  The whole reason that we have to go out of our way to promulgate and adhere to ethics is because otherwise ethics will be abandoned in the race to the bottom. It's long past time that "software engineer" became a protected term in the US, as unpopular as that may be among resume-padders.
  - neilv 3y ago
    Speaking as someone with a lot of paper credentials, who'd personally benefit from licensing software engineers... I think we're past the point that'd end up useful. For example, imagine FAANG lobbyists weighing in on what the criteria for a licensed software engineer should be. I think it'd probably end up a farce. OTOH, hold companies fully responsible for, say, products/services being secure... no butt-covering theatre, like saying you have processes, and that producing so much vulnerabilities that you need weekly security updates is somehow a good thing... and watch a platform bloodbath, and a scramble to figure out how to work with integrity.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Dylan16807 3y ago

> And thus it was made very clear that signing a document like in this Workplace question would be a big deal, since the responsibility was theirs to make sure things were compliant. It sounds like OP would have refused to sign this document if asked. So is that good for OP? Or is this a situation where not signing doesn't matter?

neilv 3y ago

My first real software engineering job came more from that tradition, where our division started as a startup of EEs and CEs, serving mil/aerospace/datacomm. So I started as a Software Technician I (and there was also a Technician II, before Engineer I). There were signoff matrices, etc. People were scrappy, making ambitious new things happen, but honest. Sheltered by lucky upbringing and early career experiences, I was shocked the first time I encountered someone in industry doing something dishonest. In the current "tech" industry, I'm no longer shocked, just frequently disappointed in what I see throughout much of the industry. I recently realized that some pretty ordinary tech ethics today is what, decades ago, was the stereotype of an "MBA". It was also a stereotype that "engineers" didn't trust "business people". Today, seems there's less cultural distinction between the groups, at least the stereotypes.

kibwen 3y ago
The whole reason that we have to go out of our way to promulgate and adhere to ethics is because otherwise ethics will be abandoned in the race to the bottom. It's long past time that "software engineer" became a protected term in the US, as unpopular as that may be among resume-padders.
- neilv 3y ago
  Speaking as someone with a lot of paper credentials, who'd personally benefit from licensing software engineers... I think we're past the point that'd end up useful. For example, imagine FAANG lobbyists weighing in on what the criteria for a licensed software engineer should be. I think it'd probably end up a farce. OTOH, hold companies fully responsible for, say, products/services being secure... no butt-covering theatre, like saying you have processes, and that producing so much vulnerabilities that you need weekly security updates is somehow a good thing... and watch a platform bloodbath, and a scramble to figure out how to work with integrity.