Subject: OFF TOPIC - Bail money for IETF 64?

From: "Nicholas Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:07:21 -0700

It would seem we will all be in violation of Canadian law (as will the IETF
as an organization) when we convene for IETF 64.  Those canucks apparently
regulate the term "Engineer" and the use of Software, Network, or Systems
Engineer is um apparently not allowed.  I wonder if they'll put Dave Crocker
and Dean Anderson in the same cell... ;)

Here's a link to the Microsoft court loss for the use of Engineer in their
MCSE certification

http://www.peo.on.ca/enforcement/Quebec_MS_April2004.pdf

Please don't take this too seriously and call me an idiot, this is of course
said with a chuckle.

Nick

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Lee Mahan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:32:30 -0700

There are a number of states in the US with the same sort of law....last 
I remembered  Texas is one<grin>

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:49:56 -0500

Thus spake "Lee Mahan" <[email-masked]>
> There are a number of states in the US with the same sort of law....
> last I remembered Texas is one<grin>

Texas law was recently amended to exempt anyone whose official job title 
includes the word "engineer", regardless of their degrees, certifications, 
bonding, or registration with the state.

Even though I benefit from this change, I disagree with it in principle 
because there are too many people out there running around calling 
themselves "engineers" who don't have a clue.  If/when there are a 
non-trivial number of schools offerring degrees in network engineering, 
systems engineering, software engineering, etc. I (and many others) will be 
lobbying to have the exemption repealed.

S

Stephen Sprunk      "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723         are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS                                             --Isaac Asimov

---

From: "Jasen Strutt" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 12:31:43 -0700

If "Minister of Technology" is acceptable, then I should be safe. 

JS

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Nicholas Staff
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 11:07 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: OFF TOPIC - Bail money for IETF 64?

Nick

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2005 22:57:50 +0200

At 20:32 18/09/2005, Lee Mahan wrote:
>There are a number of states in the US with the same sort of 
>law....last I remembered  Texas is one<grin>

France law is very tought on this, as legal rights and duties are 
attached to the title. I suppose most survived IETF63?

The only result in here of MCSE and of similar titles is that people 
smile at these "Engineers", as if they were self proclaimed. This is 
not fair for the work they did - even if some think the matter they 
worked on is no worth.

More than anything else it is a terminology issue. 
"Engineer/Ingenieurs" are faux-amis.
- in French "Ingénieur" comes from "ingenium" wich convey the idea to 
invent. An applied searcher, designer.
- in English "Engineer" conveys the idea of running an 
engine/machine, or being trained for that. We would say "un 
machiniste" but the term is not much used. The correct term would be 
"technicien" (which is also a regulated term in academic diplomas).

Would Microsoft deliver McsD titles (what is more in line with what 
are our "Engineers")?

IETF as such is not a society of Engineers, but a task force for an 
Internet Engineering, what can be carried by anyone.
jfc

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:07:07 -0700

On Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:57:50 PM +0200 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> More than anything else it is a terminology issue. "Engineer/Ingenieurs"
> are faux-amis.
> - in English "Engineer" conveys the idea of running an engine/machine, or
> being trained for that. We would say "un machiniste" but the term is not
> much used. The correct term would be "technicien" (which is also a
> regulated term in academic diplomas).

Unfortunately, the English term can carry either of these meanings, 
depending largely on context.  It is applied to people who drive trains 
(because they operate an "engine", to people who provide technical support, 
and also to people who design complex electrical or mechanical systems or 
structures.  You have to know from context which is which.

-- Jeff

---

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:23:13 -0400

> depending largely on context.  It is applied to people who drive
> trains (because they operate an "engine", to people who provide
> technical support, and also to people who design complex electrical or
> mechanical systems or structures.  You have to know from context which
> is which.

It's my (non-authoritative) understanding that the term engineer
originally meant someone who built engines (think seize engines, etc).  

When locomotive were first invented they were not very reliable so the
guy who drove them was a kind of 'field support engineer' and the name
engineer stuck.

...George

========================================================================
George Swallow             Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                           1414 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Boxborough, MA 01719

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:36:05 +0100

Goodness! You wouldn't let the engineer drive the train. That's the train
driver's job. Would you let an engineer run your network?

Adrian