MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


Re: ethics discussion

On Mon, 26 Feb 1996, Karl Boyken wrote:
> A bit about where I'm coming from:  I'm a system administrator.  I have to
> abide by the policies and guidelines laid down by my employer, and I also am
> compelled to conform to the ethical standards set forth by my professional
> peers.  

	Excuse me for butting in (I don't run a public moo nor am I a 
	wizard on a publically accessible moo nor am I in yduJ's class), 
	but... <g>

	I am a computer professional, I am also an engineer.  Neither of 
	these professions have a "code of ethics".  I am a member of IEEE 
	which HAS a code of ethics, which I support.  I am also member of 
	other organizations which have code of ethics.

	IMHO, professions do not have "code of ethics" - organizations have 
	"code of ethics". For example, there is an AMA "code of ethics" 
	Hippocratic oath) but really isn't a medical profession 
	"code of ethics".  
> I am proud to be a computer professional, and I do not want to see my
> status as a computer professional devalued by the unethical conduct of other
> computer professionals.

	Organizations have that covered: you don't abide by the code of 
	ethics- you're usually kicked out of the organization.
	What I've found in my experience, is that you are judged by your 
	personal ethical/moral reputation not your organization's.

> Professionalism carries with it certain responsibilities.  The SAGE code of
> conduct is a statement of system administrator responsibilities, 

	SAGE code --- the code created by and voluntarily agreed to by 
	SAGE members. (SAGE: System Admin Guild E???)

> and I think
> many of its guidelines might apply equally well to those of you who wish 
> to be considered more than amateurs.
	I won't respond to this flame bait, other than to say, you catch 
	more flies with sugar than with vinegar.
> The fact that many--if not all--of you seem to be opposed to any idea that 
> you have any responsibility about the conduct of wizards in general 
> indicates to me that _no_ wizard should be able to wrap emself in the 
> mantle of professionalism.

	Whoa!!  A wizard has the responsibility to run the Moo according 
	to Moo's rules and the wishes of the sponsoring organization.
	If the Moo's rule is "anything goes" within the criminal statutes 
	& the sponsoring organization concurs, than the wizard's 
	responsibility is to do just that.  

	I haven't seen any evidence that "many--if not all--of you" are 
	opposed to any idea of responsibility...  What I've seen is that 
	there is resentment that a SAGE proponent (member?) would come to 
	the MOO mailing list and state that the MOO wizards are:

		- unprofessional
		- unethical
		- irresponsible

	I suspect if an ACM proponent came to an IEEE mailing list with 
	similar behavior, the reponse would be similar. 
> I realize I am preaching to an unreceptive audience.  Be that as it may, I do
> feel compelled to make the attempt.  I also feel compelled to do what I can to
> alert my fellow system administrators to the fact that even "serious" moos, 
> and their wizards, pose a threat to their profession.
	In your (humble?) opinion. <g> 

	Karl, I patiently read your message waiting to see how "serious" 
	moos, (or non-"serious" moos) and their wizards pose a threat 
	to system administrators (your claim) but you didn't explain why 
	you feel that there is a threat.  What is the threat? 
> That's about it.  I'd appreciate any comments--please remember to copy me on
> any posts to this list.
> Thanks for your attention.
	You're welcome!  If I really wanted to be argumentative, I'd 
	quote the dictionary which says:

	professional: engaged in a specific activity as a means of livelihood
		(such as a professional musician)
	professionalism: professional status or the use of professional 
		players in organized athletics  
	which is whiy I would  quote the definition of professional - 
	if I were to stoop to quoting a dictionary <g>.


Follow-Ups: References:

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index