-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Actually, I shouldn't have been so dismissive about this. Let's look at
> the type of things this actually entails:
I figured all of this when I proposed it. I just didn't say so (foolishly).
:-)
>
> 1. What will be the standards for "certification"?
Basic things, like, what distros have you installed? Have you broken
anything? We could go with the genuine article (SAIR, RHCE, etc.) as an
example, then just make sure we know the very basics, like LILO, basic
install of the "latest and greatest", basic networking (how to connect to an
ISP), user accounts, etc. Basic knowledge of applications, as in, in Windows
I use Paint, but what do you use in Linux?
> 2. Who will decide?
We will. After all, the people at a University (Ph. D.'s, actually) decide
whether someone else should be a Ph. D. We would decide who gets high school
diplomas.
> 3. What if there's a dispute about those qualification standards?
Punt. I think there has to be some due consideration of the qualification
standards, and after that, "we" (whoever it turns out to be) can revisit
every 6 months.
> 4. What if we find there are "tiers" of certification requirements?
There would have to be. The genuine gurus know lots about shell scripting, or
obscure, command line type things. The guys who just graduated high school
can install a distro or two on factory shipped hardware.
> 5. How will we determine if someone satisfies the reqirements?
SLUG meetings? We can have an online test they would take?
> 6. Do we take someone's word for what they know?
Nope. Not if our name is going to be on a cert. Even if it's an unofficial
one.
> 7. Do we administer tests?
Yes. I don't think it should be anything like taking an SAT, but a more
informal setting, like a SLUG meeting.
> 8. Who makes up the tests?
We would. (Whoever that is)...
> 9. Who grades them?
Same.
> 10. What if there's a dispute about the test or the results?
If people are going to take this seriously...that's a problem. I would just
like to have a basic, bottom line comfort that the person who's going to be
installing Mandrake/RedHat/SuSE/Debian is going to be able to put it on my
computer, not destroy my computer, not do away with my brand new Windows XP
partition that has photos of the family on it, and be able to tell me a
little bit about Linux, why it's good, what you can do with it, and what apps
I can use on it that replace the Windows ones.
> 11. When would testing occur?
It would depend on the interest of party wishing to be tested, and the
ability of a tester to be available to give the test.
> 12. How often would testing occur?
See above.
> 13. Who would administer tests?
So I guess if we administer them, they should be graded by us. This is all
gratis, after all. We're volunteers! ;-)
> 14. What liabilities does SLUG have if someone passes the test, but
> can't perform on customer site?
That's the sticky part. We'd have TERMS, something like the GPL, that says
'"NO WARRANTY" You use the persons listed above/below at your own risk. This
unofficial cert is simply to get the person you want to contact on this
page.' In other words, the cert would only be allow for someone to be listed.
We could also have a separate section that says, "These people want to
volunteer to help, but haven't passed our unofficial cert."
> 15. What do we do about customer complaints?
What does any organization do? Talk to both the volunteer and the customer.
The real question is where do such complaints go, and should they go to us? I
don't think so. If there are several complaints about an individual, that's a
completely different can of worms.
> 16. What about customers who complain about the consultant, despite the
> fact that the consultant solved the customer's problem?
Sometimes a personality conflict can't be appropriately handled. Sometimes
there is no resolution.
> 17. If the consultant can solve problems, can he also teach?
Nope. Patience is a special thing. And not everyone has it.
> 18. How do we measure his teaching ability?
I've often wondered that about the teachers in our school system.
> 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.
I mentioned above that we could have two lists of people who want to
volunteer. One for the certs, the other for the non-certs. Boy, even for
something unofficial, that would sure have a lot of power.
> 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 agree completely. Maybe those that step forward for this could set up a
separate website? They could then do all of this if they feel the need. At
that rate, slowly they become another certification body. Eeek!
> 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.
True. I think of missionaries as from the Church, and they do have some kind
of religious training, and sanction. I guess that's where my thought came
from for the SLUG cert.
> 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.
Well, that's the rationale for a separate website/organization. We have quite
a LUG, and I'd like to see it do something more concrete. That's part of my
gradebook rationale. I'd like it to be a SLUG "product." Something I could
say, "Developed with the help of SLUG."
> Paul
Russell
- --
Linux -- the OS for the Renaissance Man
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE982VlAqKGrvVshJQRAu9sAJ4hLfLuOEhuvfVAN3ZWLcWpcD25AwCfZwY6
/PH+uh9uIHHlo8nvc1Q+kRo=
=hAZA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 18:52:04 EDT