Professional licensing

[Ted Gould]

--=-6nVdTo9hnPBhrrtRhbbA
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Okay, I'm going to try to make one big response, we'll see how this
works out... long email to follow...

On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 04:58, Vaughn Treude wrote:=20
> Wow, looks like I"ve started a flame war!! :-)
--snip--
> P.S.  Please don't take any of this  personal - I love to argue politics!=
  :-)

Don't worry about that, and I wouldn't quite call it a flame war... yet
:)

On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 02:51, Daniel Wolstenholme wrote:=20
> Sorry, but as an electrical engineer who writes software, you're
> way off.  You've basically regurgitated the same line of crap
> they feed engineering majors in college trying to get them to
> take the EIT.  I fell for that crap when I was in college too,
> but when I got into industry I realized I just wasted my time
> and money taking that test.

On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 04:58, Vaughn Treude wrote:=20
> I took the EIT test myself in 1980, with some trepidation, as I was alrea=
dy a=20
> libertarian back then.  I expressed my concerns to a professor, who got a=
 bit=20
> angry and said, "You don't want a bunch of interlopers coming in to the=20
> profession!"

While I see both of these points as close to the same thing (although
they vary in vulgarity).  Basically: I took the EIT, and I don't think
that was a good thing.  So be it, but I tend to disagree.  I think that
there are a lot of Engineers even who believe that the entire purpose is
to keep people out.  Many lawyers feel the same way about the bar
exams.  The reality is that I could go down to ASU law library, study,
and if I try hard enough, pass the bar exam.  I'd probably have a hard
time getting a job at a top lawyers office, but heck, I could write my
own will :)

There will always be good reasons and bad reasons for taking the EIT,
and continuing on for a PE.  I think that the best reason is for
protection of the public, while not every project requires that level of
insurance, it would be nice if every one had that level of quality (I
realize that is an unrealistic expectation, but I can hope can't I?)

And, for the record, my Masters is in Electrical Engineering and my
title is "Senior Software Engineer".  I'm sure that I know nothing about
being an Electrical Engineer who writes software.  Daniel, you might do
a little bit of research before attacking someone's credentials.

On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 21:41, Gene Holmerud wrote:
> The Board is concerned with the practice offered to the public, mostly
> consulting endeavors.  Major companies like public utilities support
> the Board and encourage their engineers to become registered.   This
> gives the public recourse when deliverables (products, blueprints,
> etc.) are faulty.  There are lots of investigations and penalties.
> =20
> Having said that, producing software is an engineering process.  How
> soon Arizona, or more importantly, nation-wide, that that is
> recognized I have no guess.  However, I do remember doing a digital
> circuit on my exam for Electrical Engineering.

And many states have already added 'Computer Engineering', which is
basically all digital circuits with out all of the RF stuff.  I don't
believe that AZ has yet, but I hope they will by the time I'm up to take
the test :)

On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 02:51, Daniel Wolstenholme wrote:=20
> It is illegal in most states to have a company with
> "engineering" in the name unless there is a PE on the staff,
> however.  Maybe this is what you were thinking of.  Most such
> companies are small engineering consulting firms, who do things
> like structural engineering, where one engineer looks at your
> building plans and makes sure it won't collapse.  This at least
> makes some sense from the licensing standpoint, but it's nothing
> like the way software is developed, or even how other
> engineering fields work.

I believe that there are some states that specify for individual titles
also, but I don't have any examples.

I think that you'll have to explain to me how software development works
then.  Is there not an overriding architecture and process to go along
with that?  Is there not design reviews that are handled by more senior
engineers?  I would agree that in general, software engineering hasn't
gotten to the level of sophistication that other engineer professions
have - but I think you can talk to the guys at NASA who write software
about how it's 'nothing like' standard engineering.  Remember, that NASA
has one of the most sophisticated engineering processes, and software is
no exception to that.

I think, perhaps, that you don't understand that level of complexity
that goes into structural designs.  That many engineers work on the
design, and craft different parts of it.  It is then integrated into the
larger design.  I see many more similarities than differences.  Today an
engineering project is rarely small enough that one person can work on
it oversee the entire design.

On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 02:51, Daniel Wolstenholme wrote:=20
> If a processor fails, and someone somehow dies,
> who are you going to blame?  There were THOUSANDS of engineers
> working on the Pentium 4.  How are you going to get Intel to
> figure out which particular engineer screwed up?  With a project
> that large, it's impossible to lay blame on any one person.=20
> Also with a project that large, it's impossible to make it
> error-free.  Any individual engineer makes all kinds of errors
> in their work; the organization they're a part of eliminates
> most of those errors because of all the checking and validation
> that happens.  Do you think there was one head engineer for the
> P4 that looked over the entire design and signed off on it?  Do
> you have any idea how complex semiconductor design and
> manufacturing is?  No one person could possibly even have the
> expertise to know all the different fields involved.

Well, first off - my Master's specialization is in Computer
Architecture.  I also took all of the Physics classes on Semiconductor
Devices.  I took several digital design courses along with a full
complement of Computer Science courses.  Plus, some VLSI classes to top
it all off.  While I would not say that I am an expert in all those
fields (all I have is academic knowledge), I would hardly call it
impossible.

I'll also mention that I've only worked on chips up to about 20 million
gates, that's not as big as a P4, but I'll try to relate my experiences
here.

For the most part, it is easy to blame one person or group of people.=20
If the problem is properly identified, and found, then you know where
the error was.  Let's look at the earlier Pentium problems, there was
one guy who was in charge of the division unit for the Pentium, I'm
quite sure Intel knows who that was.  Sometimes though, problems come
through interactions (and this is most of the problems in software in my
experience) so it is an 'understanding' of the specification for the
interface.  Sometime it is a problem with the definition, and that has
to be dealt with differently.  Usually both ends are to blame in those
cases.

Also, for the most part, there hasn't been 'one engineer' in charge of
the project.  Usually it is a committee of engineers that sign off on
the project.  Each one is taking some responsibility for what they are
saying is good.

Lastly, engineers will always make mistakes.  It really comes down to,
which mistakes are caught and which are allowed to continue on.  If your
TV reboots if you hit channel up to many times, it's annoying, but no
big deal.  If your TV explodes because you hit channel up too many
times, that's a big deal.  No one is arguing that an 'annoyance' is
going to slip through, but a critical function failure should not.

On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 04:58, Vaughn Treude wrote:=20
> Medical, avionics, and other life-critical applications are a sticky
> wicket,=20
> but I'd say the important thing there is certifying the process, not the=20
> designers.  Even the best developers can produce crap if there's no good=20
> process in place.  And no, I don't think the government should regulate e=
ven=20
> that directly.  Free market organizations like Underwriters Laboratories =
do a=20
> better job.   In that case, if you don't get your device certified, and i=
t=20
> fails and kills people (as an X-ray machine did a while back) you get you=
r=20
> tush sued off.

I guess my problem with saying 'process' comes from looking at CMM and
ISO process certifications.  For the most part, they only guarantee that
you can build the same crummy product again and again.

I think what you are trying to say here is that the key part is testing
what you've built.  And I would agree here.  I think this ties into what
I was saying above - yes, engineers make mistakes, and they need to be
caught.

The approach that I take to solving this problem is having engineers on
the project that will make sure it is tested in a reasonable manner.=20
While I am also impressed by the quality of work that Underwriters Labs
has done, I think that they will never be able to test the 'latest and
greatest gadgets' for functionality.  Many times the functionality is
the key thing that needs to be tested, not whether lightning causes it
to explode.  There are cases where the only people that understand it
enough to test are the people who built it.

On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 02:51, Daniel Wolstenholme wrote:=20
> Ok, what are you going to do when you find the one PE that
> signed off on the failed pacemaker?  File a class-action
> lawsuit?  Whoopie, you've spent tens of thousands of dollars in
> legal fees, just to make the guy declare bankruptcy.  You're not
> going to get a penny out of him.

I think that is the entire point I'm trying to make, there is a penalty
far greater than bankruptcy for the licensed engineer; he/she could
loose their license to practice their profession.

On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 10:40, Derek Neighbors wrote:=20
> The Architects, Lawyers, Doctors and others have similar such
> acceptability tests.  I don't think independent licensing is a "bad" thin=
g
> in and of itself, but I don't think it guarantees better employees.  We
> all have heard of horrid Architect, Lawyer and Doctor stories where their
> license didn't prevent their destruction.

Yeah, and that is sad.  But, it's nice to know in many of those cases
the individuals involved won't be practicing their profession anymore.=20
It seems like a small compensation for many of the wrongs that are
endured, but that's the entire problem with 'innocent until proven
guilty' (unless Bush things your a terrorist :).

I don't think that the certification itself makes the better engineer,
but the threat of 'one strike your out' definitely helps.

On Sat, 2003-05-24 at 04:58, Vaughn Treude wrote:=20
> And finally - if it's not about control, why have governments taken
> the=20
> liberty of denying and suspending professional licenses for a whole host =
of=20
> non-professional-related reasons?  If you have a dispute with your ex-spo=
use=20
> about child support payments, you don't get due process of law.  You have=
 to=20
> pay up of the state yanks your license (making it even harder to fulfill =
your=20
> obligations!)  Same goes for traffic tickets and other disputes with the=20
> authorities.
>=20
> The scariest thing of all is that "political correctness" is becoming a=20
> necessity for profoessional licensing.  You may have heard of the Illinoi=
s=20
> nutcase a few years back who went on a rampage, killing minorities at ran=
dom.=20
>  The guy had gone to school to be a paralegal, and the state had denied h=
im a=20
> license to practiced because of his "white supremacist" views.  Being den=
ied=20
> the opportunity of working "within the system"  may have been part of wha=
t=20
> made the guy snap.=20

I would have to say that I agree on most of the points here, licensing
should not be related to non-professional things.  While I agree that a
professional is someone who should be able to be trusted, the reality is
that this is only in a given field (be it medicine, law,
engineering...).  I think that it's sad the places that they are putting
licensing as an issue.

On the issue in Illinois, I think that it was probably reported
differently out here than it was in IL (I was there at the time).=20
Basically the guy in question was interested in blocking the courts by
using his agenda and license.  It was a stated objective.  That was more
the issue than his political views.  He really didn't want to work
within the system at all, he wanted to stop the system (and foolishly
told them so).  It wasn't pretty from any angle, but I don't think,
atleast in that case, politics was not at the center of the argument
(and he himself was a very media savvy person, so he basically
controlled that angle).  (As an unrelated fact correction, the guy was
denied a license to practice law, and one of his followers was the one
that did all the killings because of it - but the core issue is still
the same).


Well, I tried to hit all the main points.  Sorry if I missed any.

To summarize, yeah, licensing isn't perfect, and doesn't make perfect
individuals.  It really just makes more responsible individuals.  One
would like to believe that everyone would embrace that responsibility
and live up to it, but that will never be the case.  As soon as any
engineer looses the perspective that public trust is important, they are
less of an engineer in my book.  I fully plan on applying for my PE when
I get the chance, even though I'm pretty sure it will never be a
requirement for a job I have.  It's important to me.

		--Ted




--=-6nVdTo9hnPBhrrtRhbbA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+0Ha7LE335pRPGp0RAqV6AKC7eKtucNKtzQOH97ImA8galB7pygCghBsD
TWtPluq8I+KCeI8si1mvEfY=
=+PKZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-6nVdTo9hnPBhrrtRhbbA--