Re: cert discussion

[Hal Miller <hal@tera.tera.com>]

Gene Rackow writes:
> In many cases, what certification is aimed at is the entry level person.
> These are the people that don't have lots of money to get started in the
> first place, and do not have a resume/vita that speaks for them.  They
> need a certificate that claims they at least get in the door.  Having
> to much to cost involved with that is going to limit them too.

Good point.  We discussed this during the Board meeting, and all agreed
that whatever is done must not be exclusive based on cost.  I also agree
that the program we're likely to come up with will be aimed mostly at
entry level people.

> Also, how relevant are the questions.  Things vary from OS to OS, and in
> some cases release to release.  The formats of files vary widely, etc.
> While I don't have the full format of every option in the AIX version of
> the /etc/passwd /etc/security/passwd stanza files memorized, I know the
> ones that are important, and can find the others in moments.

Very true.  This is why we discussed a "Level 1" program rather than a
"Level 4"  Knowing what a filesystem is can be generalized much more easily
that knowing the differences between FAT, XFS, UFS and DFS.  Knowing what
one is can probably be judged important to a Level 1 sysadmin, whereas
knowing the differences between types would probably not.

> Forcing membership is not the way to go.  It is clear that there are
> people that are not happy with Usenix, so forcing membership upon them
> is not going to make them happy.  Do we want real unbiased certification,
> or a multi-card carrying club?

I am a member of the Oregon State Bar.  I had to take certain specialized
classes and exams to get that certification (no, I don't practice any longer).
I've done this (the "forcing" issue).  I see no reason to do so in a sysadmin
environment, now or in the future.  Just doesn't seem to apply.  I'm looking
for the unbiased, meaningful version, and most certainly do NOT want a
country club.  I can't see it happening.

> Some of the issues are above.  One thing that I mentioned already in other
> mail on this thread, is that according to "certification standards"
> I'm passed the tests for FCC Class 1 radio/telegraph systems about 20years
> ago.  It takes very little to keep that certification valid, and the
> fact that I haven't touched or even looked at one of those systems in 15
> years does not matter.  In our field, the sytems change even more often
> than radio.  most radio transmission stations are using the same transmitter
> towers, amps, etc they have for many years.  Most computer systems get
> replaced in 3 to 5 years.

Another good point.  Keeping the program current, and keeping us current
are two big issues.  They need to be worked out.  I've heard some preliminary
ideas, but nothing concrete yet.
-- 
HM