|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Training (was Tech contact for Qwest?)
> What about saying that clueful internet engineers are getting greedy, and are > afraid to teach junior engineers in an attempt to save their jobs and not loose > there high salaries. For example... > > Teach Mike all he knows > or > Teach Mike enough to keep him silent and still make sure that Mike is below th > clue level of Joe. What does Joe do ? I dont know. Although it may often be perceived this way, I don't think that it's always true. My biggest problem with training is the time involved. Management often feels that another body gives instant results, so even more work is thrown at the group. So now there's more work *and* training to deal with. I'm not meaning to imply that I'm "clueful", but when I've been in this type of situation I usually expect the trainee to self-teach themselves. Toss a project in their direction, answer their questions, and hope that you were right in assuming that they have initiative when you hired them. But to make this (remotely) on topic... > > Since the thrice yearly NANOG meetings are a major source of clue transfer > > in the industry, I think that this is quite appropriate to discuss on the > > list. Should the NANOG meetings include a longer tutorial component prior > > to the two-day meeting? If NANOG offered weeklong courses prior to the > > meetings would your management sent engineers for training? Would your > > management allow clueful engineers to teach such courses? Yes, maybe, yes. Personally, I'm in favor of anything that increases clue levels and requires less time on my part. :) But I also have to confess that my work isn't as much in NANOG's realm as I would like, so it probably wouldn't benefit me too much. Chris
|