Legacy Revisited

I have some positive responses to the draft, but also some negative ones.  The beginning is "way too technical" and "not related to the story."  I agree, to a point.  I was trying to bring some enlightening verbiage and set Mark up as proud of his work.  But I gather too much tech will turn off non-technical readers.  In re-reading this, it is a bit soap-boxy, and the more I read it the more I dislike it.  So here is the old beginning...

We missed Dean in the meetings.  His cutting wit had a way of getting to the heart of issues. He had moved on to be an IT Solutions Architect at a competitor. Dean only had a six month programming course from the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, but he did have a good grasp of how software fit together and was knowledgeable about tech du jour.

IT Architects are supposed to plan, design, and oversee the implementation of technology in a company, but unlike real architects that make buildings, there is no requirement for license for safety purposes.  Though there are bodies that do offer some accreditation, like most disciplines in IT that grant certificates, there isn’t much validity to any of them.  I felt no need to certify in anything IT-flavored after getting my degree.  The paper didn’t make me an expert, my passion did and you could see it in my craft. People get accredited to get jobs.  This doesn’t always mean they have experience or can do the job - that is usually the point of getting a certificate.

Snip!  As for the rest of the techy speak in the story, I am not sure what to change yet.