* Mikel King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 14:00]:
>
>
> Jerry B. Altzman wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:42:31 -0500, Jim Brown
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>A very valid concern. How to balance basic and advanced certs will be
> >>a key issue.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >In fact, I haven't seen a strict discussion on:
> >
> >Precisely WHAT do we want to certify? That someone knows how to boot a
> >box? Run it? Not run it into the ground?
> >
> >(Maybe I just missed the deep probing discussions on this in the past
> >day or so...)
> >
> >//jbaltz
> >
> >
> There was a brief discussion and Tillman pointed to sage's job
> description definitions.
> Here's the url http://www.sage.org/field/jobs-descriptions.mm
>
> We were consideriong using this as a guideline...
>
Before the public launch, the group discussions were very hot on this
topic. Getting to agreement is tough. You are never going to please
everybody (and that includes me ;-).
At the risk of antagonizing everyone-
Can you provide a description in 100 words or less on what you think
the certification types and levels should be? One certification,
or separate for each BSD? Basic level per BSD, or basic level
combined, leaving advanced level per BSD? All paper tests?
All computer tests? Basic test by computer, advanced by lab?
Silly example:
'I favor 32 different certs - one for every bit in the i386.
Each BSD (F,O,N,D) has eight different levels. Basic tests
by computer. Advanced tests by lab. Each level is good
for four days.'
( 34 words )
It's very easy to get carried away- so please try to keep to 100
words or less.
Best Regards,
Jim B.
_______________________________________________
BSDcert mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/bsdcert
