[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: The Information Interchange Profession
I think I understand you and, as usual, what you say makes sense to me. On 12/04/2013 10:29 AM, Ihe Onwuka wrote: > You are right to question. Even the BCS acknowledge the legitimacy of > questioning whether they should play a regulatory role comparable to > what obtains in other professions. See the commentary in question A1 below. > > http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/sep12dippiispreport.pdf > > However, in the UK Family Lawyers by virtue of the nature of their > specialism have some practices and regulations (or rather lack thereof) > that are quite distinct from the rest of the legal profession. For > example they have to deal with abductions and authorise forensic > investigations into personal affairs that would never pass muster in an > alternative tribunal. Yet it hasn't amounted to a justification why > their numbers should not be bound by the regulation of the Bar Council > (or the equivalent body for soliticors). Because I kind of read that as > an analogy of what you are suggesting. > > If some elements of the document are objectionable, is the thing to do > to reject it in its entirety?. The BCS did not draw up that charter from > scratch, some of what is there derogates from their being part of the > Engineering Council. I could not be so sure t there is nothing of merit > for the domain you propose rather I would suggest that what is there can > be adapted and is better than starting from zero. > > > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Steve Newcomb <srn@coolheads.com > <mailto:srn@coolheads.com>> wrote: > > Ihe, I assume you are posting this link for a reason, but having read > the referenced... > > BCS [British Computer Society], THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE FOR IT > TRUSTEE BOARD REGULATIONS - SCHEDULE 3 > CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BCS MEMBERS > > ...the reason is not clear to me. The statement appears to me to be in > service of the BCS's institutional concerns, taking the position that > the true calling of an IT professional is to maintain the status quo, > play by the rules, etc. Is that your understanding of it, or am I > reading it wrongly? > > That kind of thing makes sense for Bar Associations, because their > members' professional calling is to serve the Rule of Law. It makes > sense for the accounting profession, too, because its purpose is to > maintain the stability of property ownership, get public services paid > for without undermining the currency, support the formation of capital > in securities, allocate and direct resources, and so forth. > > A pro-establishment mission statement makes less sense for doctors. > Doctors have a calling that can conflict with the requirements imposed > by law and by property. I don't want to seek therapy from a doctor > whose primary professional duty is to anything but my recovery, > consistent with public health. We expect doctors to be disruptive in > just that way. An important global professional organization's name, > "Medecins sans Frontiers/Doctors Without Borders" is emblematic of my > point, here. > > The flavor of the British Computer Society statement makes even less > sense for Information Interchange Professionals, whose professional duty > can very easily conflict with the interests of the status quo. In my > own view, an Information Interchange Professional accepts responsibility > for the accurate transfer of information among diverse communities with > diverse viewpoints and diverse universes of discourse, no matter the > agenda. > > Such a role *must* be a disruptive one, at least from the perspective of > the establishment, but it's a life-affirming role from the perspective > of human beings, because of the stark "adapt or die" choice every > organism faces. Humanity cannot adapt successfully if it doesn't know > what it needs to adapt to. Indeed, I suppose the reason humanity is now > the dominant species on this planet is its phenomenal adaptability, > which in turn rests on its ability to share information of considerable > complexity, subtlety, and novelty. > > And that's why Freedom of Speech (which is something that the UK > establishment's Official Secrets Act limits, BTW) and Open Source are > two things, among many others, that are profoundly wise and > life-affirming, as well as being threatening to existing interests. > They are wise things because public health demands more than clean water > and vaccinations. > > On 12/04/2013 02:03 AM, Ihe Onwuka wrote: > > http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/conduct.pdf > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|