MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
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>.
Sarah.
-----
Follow-Ups:
References:
Home |
Subject Index |
Thread Index