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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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
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>
