On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 09:24:57PM -0500, Russell Hires wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> This is a good idea, but we need to be careful about sending Linux people out
> who aren't "qualified." I don't necessarily mean RHCE's, but some basic
> modicum of knowledge/experience so that Linux doesn't become a bad word
> because of a bad experience.
>
> It's also important that missionaries who do go out prevent people from
> looking over their shoulder as installation/support takes place. This can
> make doing any troubleshooting or even basic installing difficult, and can
> lead to a bad experience....
>
> Maybe we could have a "Suncoast LUG Certification?" Nothing so thorough as
> RHCE, but basic minimum level of expertise? I would recommend this even if
> people were going out for free.
>
Actually, I shouldn't have been so dismissive about this. Let's look at
the type of things this actually entails:
1. What will be the standards for "certification"?
2. Who will decide?
3. What if there's a dispute about those qualification standards?
4. What if we find there are "tiers" of certification requirements?
5. How will we determine if someone satisfies the reqirements?
6. Do we take someone's word for what they know?
7. Do we administer tests?
8. Who makes up the tests?
9. Who grades them?
10. What if there's a dispute about the test or the results?
11. When would testing occur?
12. How often would testing occur?
13. Who would administer tests?
14. What liabilities does SLUG have if someone passes the test, but
can't perform on customer site?
15. What do we do about customer complaints?
16. What about customers who complain about the consultant, despite the
fact that the consultant solved the customer's problem?
17. If the consultant can solve problems, can he also teach?
18. How do we measure his teaching ability?
I've just scratched the surface here. In actual practice, I know there
would be far more issues than this. And then the question arises as to
who is willing to take the time to administer all of this, once it's
rolling? You're talking, probably, at least five people who'd have to
take time to do all the work of this. Meantime, all those little guys
who'd like to go out and do this sit on the sidelines, capable, but not
confident enough in their ability to pass the test. Or unwilling to go
through all the rigamarole to get certified.
Plus, I don't really want to turn SLUG into a business. Someone
mentioned staying under the radar. I prefer that. That way, we don't
have to deal with the government, bureaucracies, etc.
I originally chose the word "missionaries" to distinguish these people
from "consultants", which is a lot more formal. You typically don't have
to have any certification to be a "missionary". You just have to have a
desire to help.
Now, if someone can simply resolve the issues above (and whatever else
we can think of), I'm all for it. I'd love to see a cadre of
SLUG-shirted Linux "commandos" in the community. But I just don't know
if it's practical for a LUG like ours.
(You know, I really like that word "commandos". Maybe we should have
"commandos" instead of "missionaries".) ;-}
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:47:55 EDT