Licensing software engineers

Reviewer: John W. Fendrich

Frailey sees comments on software engineering licensing as deja vu, recalling the debate on the go to statement that raged three decades ago. He regards licensing as a political issue, and he regards the debate about licensing in software engineering as noble, but shallow. He views getting into the debate as the primary responsibility of computing professionals. Licensing authorities have asked computer professionals to work with them. The author asserts that licensing helps disciplines to mature, and he thinks licensing and regulation are too important to leave to others. This is a good article. It encourages more participation. It calls for hearing all sides, learning the facts, and participating in defining reasonable regulation mechanisms. I could not agree more. We can observe the standards activity for software engineering. We can observe individuals and groups work, over time, trying to set the scope and composition of a software engineering discipline with various attempts, organizations, and documents. Frailey is correct that this is a political issue. Beyond the general politics that he speaks of, there are special interests, elites, cliques, institutes, and companies within the computing profession. The issues he addresses are political within our own ranks. It is hard to have representation. It is hard for computing professionals to listen to and engage with other points of view within their own ranks. People trying to communicate and be reacted to have expressed frustration. In trying to teach computer science and computer information systems, we can find people who do great work, build great products, and contribute to the digitization of society and the creation of wealth. Many do this without, even in spite of, formal licensing or certification. Computer development and application may be more an art than a science. There is a discipline of innovation and creativity in applications. New venues, cultures, and ways of doing business are invented. Perhaps this field has only scratched the surface in its maturity. This can be observed as being done without an established ring or gang of professionals. One can compare the scene to the difference between the established professional entertainment centers of New York theater and Hollywood and the talent and creativity of individuals and groups outside of this established arena in the community operas and theater, which produce shows that meet entertainment needs and provide outlets for talent and creativity. There are groups and individuals in the computer field who find reward and outlet for their talent and creativity in innovative ways that meet and identify often innovative needs, done for the love of the work (albeit often for the love of power, influence, and wealth). Even with licensing in place, the fixing of responsibility in matters of safety and health is distressingly political. Some computing professionals may be hesitant to expose the fixing of responsibility in our field to the same sort of processes. I suppose it is all in how mature we are about the realities of the world.