On Monday 12 September 2005 14:28, you wrote: > >The obvious point, that you chose to miss, was that > >there are a number of certs with engineer in the title, some going back > > over 20 years so submitting Engineer as a title, is not novel or unusual, > > but as I have already said, there are alternatives. > > I didn't miss the point.
Well it didn't come across that way. > The fact that IT vendors have chosen to insult > the profession of engineering, and been doing it for a long time, > remains an insufficient reason to increase the damage. > My larger point is this: If you make a very high quality and desirable > certification, the name isn't worth getting excited over. If the cert > provides value to job-seekers, to their employers and to the BSD > community at large, most reasonable names will do fine. There are issues > that require far more attention than what the thing's called. "the name isn't worth getting excited over" But apparently, some people do, don't they. I offered some choices and explained why. I offered some changes. Someone offered a number system. Yes but you seem to be the one getting overly excited. I have also offered my opinions on what they should contain. I am really dismayed at the present 'mix and muddle' between high level and low level content. There are books teaching total systems. A BSD certification should give people and employers confidence that they can do a set job with a high level of expertise. > For all I care, the first level can be called "BSD Certified Daemon", > and the envelope containing your certificate has two little horns > included.... > > - Evan _______________________________________________ BSDCert mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/bsdcert
