On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:32:18AM -0500, Mikel King wrote:
> First I would like to suggest that we attack one subject per thread.
> I honestly am getting quite confused with the back and forth in a
> disconnected fashion.
Good idea :-)
> Let's say we have the basic universal BSD certs, and some specialized certs.
>
> These would require a recert at the highest level attained once every
> two years
> 1. BSD User
> 2. BSD Jr Admin
> 3. BSD Sr Admin
I like this, except I don't think we need a BSD User cert. And the Sr
Admin cert can come at some future date, once the Jr cert is already
successful.
> Specializations that do expire;
> 1. Advanced Security Admin
> 2. Advance DB Admin
> 3. Advanced <INSERT NAME HERE> Admin
As a possible stage III (after Sr Admin), several years in the future,
maybe.
But if I want to hire a security guy I'll hire someone with a handful of
GIAC certs (and a CISSP) before I'd look for a BSD Security cert.
Similarly for DB cert -- at most client sites I've contracted to, the
operating system folks and the database admins are separate teams. If I
want a DB guy, I'll get a DB guy.
I guess I'm not convinced that these specialized certs are necessary. I
do believe that pursuing too much at the beginning dilutes our efforts
... I'd like to see one basic cert get off the ground before broad
topics like this are even looked at seriously.
> Specialized OS Specific Certification that do not need to expire because
> once the track has been closed there will not be any changes made.
> 1. FreeBSD 4.x Track
> 2. FreeBSD 5.x Track
> 3. NetBSD 2.x Track
> 4. OpenBSD 3.x Track
>
> Ok so what's everyone's thoughts on this idea? One advantage of breaking
> the certs down into smaller subcerts is that they would be far easier to
> maintain and enhance. Also by doing an OS Specified cert we would only
> need to change that track when a major rev happens thus maintaining the
> base levels.
I like the track idea in that it let's use avoid the cert expiry issue
(which is going to be a bikeshed, no doubt). OTOH, while it may seem
simpler, I think it'll be much more expensive.
Getting examination questions professionally reviewed and validated
isn't cheap -- the fewer certs we have, at least initially, the better.
For an example, take a look at the LPI level 1 development process (I
don't know if their list archives from that time period are still
available, and I've already purged mine unfortunately). One of their
"why we're good" blurbs on their web site is:
"Quality: The LPI certification exams go through an extensive validation
process, following psychometric standards. This checks their consistency
and the power of the test items to discriminate between competent and
not-yet-competent individuals, and sets the pass|fail cut score at an
optimal value."
I suspect development of a test that uses truly neutral language and
running a "beta" period to get the data needed to "set the bar" is
something that is not only harder than expected, it's also not in our
communities particular area of expertise. We're going to need outside
help for that. Since that probably costs money, I think we should
minimize it's necessity.
-T
--
"Beauty is not diminished by being shared."
-- Robert Heinlein
_______________________________________________
BSDcert mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/bsdcert
