emery@gypsy.UUCP (12/11/85)
As a SIGAda member in good standing, I believe that SIGAda is a very acceptable forum for a debate on Software Professionalism. The Department of Defense is trying to make a new start with the Ada (and STARS) program. They have recognized that they cannot continue 'business as usual', they cannot afford the cost or the abuse from Congress when things don't work. Ada is the catalyst for introducing the whole gamut of Software Engineering into the Defense Department. Since SIGAda exists to explore issues relating to the use of the Ada language, any proposals for the certification of Ada programmers certainly falls in the scope of the organization. It is not SIGAda's business to establish a certification program for Ada programmers. I do not think that anyone associated with SIGAda has this in mind. On the other hand, Ed Berard is trying to act as a focus for discussion about what might be in such a program. People who are radically opposed to the certification of software professionals (and the ACM role in such activities, if any develops), should look at other engineering societies. If we believe what we do is engineering, then we should be pressing for certification and licensing, in the same fashion as Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, and Electrical Engineers. In my opinion, this is a very valuable thing, both for us and for society. People who complain about buggy programs should support such an idea. Consider: If a Civil Engineer seals the drawings for a building, and that building is later proven structurally unsound, that engineer is legally liable for his error. This flies in the face of the tons of software sold 'as is', with all kinds of problems, where no individual is responsible and liable for his problems. Finally, to those of you who are SIGAda members and are opposed to SIGAda's participation in professionalism, or any other activity: I STRONGLY suggest that you try to attend the SIGAda meetings, where these matters are discussed. If you cannot attend, write up a short article stating why you oppose such activities, and send it to "Ada Letters". Or at least communicate your feelings to the SIGAda officers, whose addresses are on the inside front cover of "Ada Letters", which all SIGAda members receive. In my opinion, "flaming" about SIGAda activities on info-ada shows a disturbing lack of professional standards. info-ada (and net.lang.ada) is not the correct forum for complaining about SIGAda activities. Dave Emery Siemens Research princeton!siemens!emery DISCLAIMER: The above opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Association for Computing Machinery, its Special Interest Group on Ada (or the Executive Committee of SIGAda), or my employer.
garry@lasspvax.UUCP (Garry Wiegand) (12/13/85)
There is a good article in this month's Atlantic on what the author calls "credentialism": the all-American desire to acquire "credentials" for oneself and to only employ those who have such proper credentials. I make no further comment; the author's more fair (and enlightening) than I can hope to be!
rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (12/18/85)
> There is a good article in this month's Atlantic on what the author > calls "credentialism": the all-American desire to acquire "credentials" > for oneself and to only employ those who have such proper credentials. ...a trend which, in our great tradition of natural-language hacking, will no doubt come to be called "credentialization"... -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Are you making this up as you go along?