[ale] Re: [ale-unemployed] Re: [ale] Re: [ale-unemployed] Aname?

James P. Kinney III jkinney at localnetsolutions.com
Tue Feb 12 22:02:38 EST 2002


Hi John,

Having given this topic more thought today than I intended :), at this
time it is the easiest route to consider a name that is "not loaded". I
feel that being able to use the term engineer in the the name would
require either legal expenses or some serious time with the boards. As I
have found in my research on this topic, there are several states which
do prohibit the use of the engineer word ANYWHERE without a PE license
as a principle in the organization. 

I hope that this group can do some good for our collective, immediate
needs. Over time, it would be nice if it developed into something
larger. That's a long range potential that I was evaluating in the name
choice. It has brought me to the conclusion that the term "Engineer"
should be strictly avoided for this organization. Maybe for a
professional organization at a later time, but for now, this group is,
from the conversation at Buffaloes, more interested in a "Public
Awareness" style organization. 

So what I envision at this time for a name involves:
Open Source - not "free", too misleading and loaded
Association - that's what it is
Professional - Hey! We want to get paid for this stuff!


I can't wrangle "PAYUS" out of this! :(

OK, I just read some more mail and saw the suggestion for :
Association of Applied Open Source Technologists from John Cruz.

aaost.com/net/org are all OK

That is generic enough and loose enough that the name doesn't constrict
the activities.

On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 16:52, John Mills wrote:
> James -
> 
> Thanks for the two well-reasoned replies. I agree with all your
> substantive points, but I read the code a bit more strictly than you on a
> couple of distinctions.
> 
> First and foremost, I am 100% in favor of an organization or a community
> of us (I lost my job, too, and am now a fledgling consultant!), formal or
> informal, where we can pool our experience and/or offer specific tools for
> working technical professionals. I have two points of caution:
> 
> (1) We (like many other professional interest groups) mix common interests
> and competitive interests: there are probably list readers better than I
> at most or all the abilities I can offer a client, and I expect to compete
> with y'all for at least some clients' business. This will affect the ways
> we can help each other.
> 
> I consider myself collegial and generally have a "the more, the merrier"
> approach to my professional community: I have learned from my colleagues
> and tried to teach in my turn, but when I go to a job fair and see dozens
> of very impressively qualified software engineers vying for a few
> positions, I can't ignore the competition entirely.
> 
> (2) We don't operate in a legal vacuum in the market, and need to be
> sensitive to the legalities of doing business, whatever business comes out
> to be. This was the point of my note, naturally.
> 
> On 12 Feb 2002, James P. Kinney III wrote:
> 
> > John et al.
> > (lengthy reply warning :)
> > 
> [ ... elided ...]
> 
> > As I read them (4 times now <yawn>), the rules are inclusionary in form.
> > They set the standards for being included in the P.E. grouping. They do
> > not form an exclusionary system that prevents the use of the term
> > "engineer". They only prevent the use of the term "Professional
> > Engineer" as that has legal license standing like M.D.
> 
> The rules define the practice of engineering inclusively, but pretty
> broadly. Then they restrict who may legally offer this service.
> 
> > Participation in an association of a related engineering field by a P.E.
> > will have no bearing on the status of the PE. Case in point, IEEE.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> > If a PE tried to group association members under his PE license, THAT
> > would be a problem. Unless the PE was following the rules of the PE
> > license and acting as the supervisory PE on all matters that were
> > stamped as approved by him. That is what a PE can do.
> 
> As I understand this, the P.E. must truly understand and evaluate the work
> which he/she certifies; it can't just be _pro_forma_. (This doesn't
> contradict your comment.)
> 
> Naturally only certain types of work require any certification, and this
> seldom includes software. The rules of engineering practice are not
> applicable only to types of work which require certification by a licensed
> individual, however.
> 
> > We don't claim to be Professional Engineers. We do claim to be
> > Consulting Engineers. That has no legal status. (that I have found yet)
> 
> I would not say 'Consulting Engineers' - 'Software Consultants' or
> 'Software Developers' don't strike me as risky. YMMV.
> 
> > As an association of "engineers and consultants", we are not claiming to
> > be involved in any way as doing the work of the members. The association
> > is merely a common meeting point to serve the needs of its members as
> > designated by the (unfinished) Mission Statement and carried out by an
> > elected Board of Directors.
> 
> Furious agreement. I stipulate that problems could arise if we acted as a
> clearing-house or source of referrals, or provided a list of qualified
> "engineers", whether or not they were members. That's where I'm very
> cautious.
> 
> > Since employers can toss around "... Engineer" as liberally as they
> > choose, they have already researched the legalese and have found no
> > conflict.
> 
> I have given this some thought over the years, and my non-legal opinions
> are:
> 
> (1) There's a hidden presumption that an employer can evaluate the
> capabilities of prospective staff and/or take their chances, but the
> license is to protect the uninformed public trying to choose a physician,
> lawyer, architect, plumber, hairdresser, ..., or engineer. <b>Offering
> services <u>to the public</u> is the distinction here.</b>
> 
> (2) There was no software engineering material in the P.E. tests I took
> c.1975, but I am obligated under my license to only perform work for which
> I consider myself qualified. The license is something I can lose if I am
> unprofessional (whatever that comes out to mean), and is thus a general
> "club" that society holds over me. Much of my claimed "continuing
> professional development" is directly related to software development, and
> I would be 100% confident defending this to the Board. I wouldn't certify
> to the strength or safety of a structure without a _lot_ of preparation,
> since I don't normally do this kind of work. (All my degrees are in M.E.)
> 
> > It is my hope that in the long run, as a group we can help foster the
> > adoption of the "best practices" methods that P.E.s use. It will benefit
> > our membership to learn how to do a better job than the MSCEs!
> 
> More furious agreement!
> 
> Regards -
>  John Mills
-- 
James P. Kinney III   \Changing the mobile computing world/
President and COO      \          one Linux user         /
Local Net Solutions,LLC \           at a time.          /
770-493-8244             \.___________________________./

GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics)
<jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7 



 This is a digitally signed message part




More information about the Ale mailing list