Re: cert discussion

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

Hal Pomeranz writes:
> I'm confused about a couple of apparently conflicting statements in
> your most recent message.  Maybe you can clarify a couple of things for
> me and the lurking membership:
> 
> You say that the Board DID NOT set out to:
> }   - require certification for membership
> 
> but then you later mention a problem that you're personally facing:
> 
> } if I am faced (I've been there) with
> } 160+ applicants for a single junior position, I need something to help with
> } the preselection process.
> 
> It seems to me that suddenly the certification IS a requirement, if 
> somebody isn't going to get through the qualification process without it.
> And even if that's not the be-all and end-all for your hiring decision, 
> you can be HR departments and recruiters are going to seize on this
> system and make it a tacit requirement.

I don't see it as a requirement of any sort.  What it does is speed up the
process of preliminary screening: a resume that includes various "buzzwords"
gets put into the pile for further review right away (whether those be
X years of UNIX experience, a CS degree, or a certification), and the others
need a bit more review right now to see whether they should go into that
same pile.  In my personal situation, a resume that doesn't have whatever
buzzword I'm looking for staring me in the face doesn't automatically get
rejected, it just needs a bit more reading for the initial screen.  How
others may treat this, I don't know.


> Also in the "Board DID NOT" category we have:
> 
> }   - establish a plan that would require people to pay anything to anyone
> 
> and in the "Board is planning" column:
> 
> }   - agree to proceed toward a "single-topic" recognition program a la Pat
> }     Wilson's Merit Badges
> }   - agree to investigate ways of having a certification program administered
> }     effectively and inexpensively
> 
> I remain unconvinced that even a "single topic recognition program" will
> not require a significant financial investment on the part of our membership
> and their employers.  Can you describe more completely your thoughts in
> this area?

The original Merit Badge proposal for example was (and still is) a self-study
guide.  The method of awarding the resulting recognition isn't yet worked
out, but the primary discussion was along the lines of acceptance by some
individual(s) in the community who are acknowledged experts.  Simplistic
example: Eric Allman helps write the criteria for the sendmail recognition,
at two levels.  Those who pass his higher level become certifiers themselves,
and SAGE needs some database of who they are.  Those certifiers notify the
SAGE database of individuals they've certified at the lower level.  Cost
overall is quite low.  Bear in mind that this is definitely an overly
simplistic layout and I'm not planning to "defend" specifics in how that
"program" works or where it might fail, although I'd be only too happy to
have anyone with productive thoughts on it contact me on the side with their
views so we can work it.
-- 
HM