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
>
>
>