Stephen Potter wrote:
> Richard Chycoski wrote:
>> I don't believe that this field is quite ready for it yet, but when
>> LOPSA does get into the area of certification we need a broader-based
>> 'systems administration' program.Product based exams are for
>> 'technicians', wide-scoped professional exams are for 'engineers'.
>> This organisation is about moving forward the profession of systems
>> administration, which means that we need to look more like engineers
>> than technicians.
>
> (Since this is a discussion of what LOPSA should do regarding
> professional standards/certification, I will invoke the standard board
> member disclaimer that I'm speaking for myself and my opinions, not
> for the Board or the organization)
>
> This has always been more of my idea of what we should do for
> certification. Most professional certifications ("Board Certified")
> require four parts, not all of which are under the direct
> control/supervision of the certifying organization:
> 1) Completion of a recognized degree or other core subject educational
> curriculum (technical certification)
> 2) Demonstration of professional experience, such as an intern program
> or apprenticeship
> 3) Professionalism or ethical training and certification
> 4) Registration, fee
>
> I would think that part of a LOPSA certification would include a
> number of different tracks, such that you could be a "LOPSA Certified
> Systems Administrator - Linux", "LCSA - Windows", even "LCSA - SAN"
> (for example). For the technical certification part, we might accept
> an RHCT or a Novell CLA/CLP10 (I could also see us having a "LOPSA
> Certified Systems Engineer" or "Architect" that might require an RHCE
> or Novell CLE10). For #2, we would accept job experience. For #3, we
> need to formalize things like the ethics class that Moose teaches
> pretty regularly at LISA and LOPSA events, and perhaps come up with an
> online test.
>
> -spp
This is exactly why I believe that it is not yet time for LOPSA to offer
such certifications. The education part of other professional
organisations (engineering, medicine, law, and such) have a requirement
for general education that provides a background that is not product
based. 'Linux sysadmin', 'Windows sysadmin' or even 'SAN sysadmin' are
product oriented, and RHCT or CLA/CLP10 are certifications of their own,
we really have no business co-opting them as a basis for our own
certifications.
Until we have an education program that teaches 'systems administration'
(as opposed to 'Linux' or 'Windows' administration or other
product-oriented training) we have not yet progressed to being a
profession. I've seen this with other professions, and a good friend of
the family was a major instigator for getting Registered Massage
Therapist a professional designation in British Columbia. To do this,
she worked with other therapists to first set up an organisation and
come up with an appropriate exam. (She trained in Ontario where there
was already a program.) Once the exam was created, she worked with the
organisation to get recognised by the government of British Columbia.
Over the next *20 years*, the organisation worked to create a three-year
educational program with local providers that is now a prerequisite for
certification. I can tell you that graduates of this program are some of
the best-trained, most respected massage therapists on this continent.
And this is in a field where the concept of 'massage therapist' has
rather negative connotations in many people's mind.
Hmm - systems administration isn't that well thought of either, in too
many circles...
If we're to get the industry to buy in to a certification, we need to
show that this is a truly professional certification - not based on a
particular product or technology, but based on principles of systems
administration that apply across platforms. Individuals might still
specialise in a particular platform (just as engineers, doctors, and
lawyers specialise in particular areas of their profession), but the
basic principles are really common to all technologies, and these need
to be learned by all types of systems administrators. If you put me in
front of a *nix/Windows/Mac/zOS/VMS/... system, there are underlying
philosophies that are common and these should be the basis for the
profession.
If you want to do a CCIE, you need to show proficiency with X.25, SNA,
and AppleTalk (or at least you did recently) even if you will never
encounter those protocols in your IP-only environment - and this is for
a technology cert. For a sysadmin-cert, a candidate should be able to
show proficiency and understanding of the underlying requirements for
backup, security, authentication, authorisation, data integrity, etc. -
not just how to implement these in Linux or Windows. OSes come and go -
I've worked with at least a dozen or two already in my career, and
expect to hit a dozen more before I'm done. You train to a product for a
fleeting certification in that product. You train to a general standard
for long term professional certifications. Professionals are expected to
keep learning new areas after their initial certification, but that
certification itself does not become void or useless because of time -
because it is a certification of the understanding of underlying
principles, not specific implementations.
- Richard
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
