Michael Tiernan wrote: >> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:20:57 -0400 >> From: Stephen Potter <[email protected]> >> To: Richard Chycoski <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> > > >> This has always been more of my idea of what we should do for certification. >> Most professional certifications ("Board Certified") require [...] >> I would think that part of a LOPSA certification [...] >> > > I would like to prompt the conversation to take two tracks, one > "short-term" and one "long-term", the long-term solution being of the > nature of a full-fledged 'LOPSA Board Certified" objective. > > The short-term objective (which is what I had in mind when I started > this conversation) is that of being of providing some sort of > creedence or standardization to the current mix of tests that an > individual could take, something like a "LOPSA Endorsed" tag. > > I believe that the experience of "our" doing this will lay the > groundwork for actually going the full distance and creating a > certification track. > > Let me say that I don't assume for a moment that either of these > processes will resolve the great unanswered questions of life. The > trigger that prompted me to broach this subject was discussing the > choices in Linux of installing on one big disk slice or using multiple > file systems. (No, I'm not going to discuss these choices here!) The > crux of the conversation came down to: "Did someone making the choice > between one or the other know the ramifications of each choice?" > > It is that basic question that I'd hope a first level LOPSA > endorsement would address. not "what is best" but ensure to employers > that as someone who's passed the first level of the LOPSA testing > process I know both of these options and what the pro's and con's of > each choice are. > > Additionally, we don't have to concentrate on a singular provider of > testing standards, we can use one for linux, one for MS-Windows, one > for AIX, etc. > > I for one have always found that the wide difference between how I do > things and how the previous guy did things to be a source of confusion > and annoyance to my employers. > > Thanks for letting me stir things up. > OK- in the short term, I don't think that LOPSA has enough industry 'cachet' to start putting a 'LOPSA Approved' sticker on other organisations courses and certifications. At least - not an approval that employers are going to notice or take heed of (yet), and I believe that it would be presumptuous of us to do this.
It believe that it could make sense to have a 'LOPSA Recommended' label. This would be more between LOPSA/trainers/sysadmins rather than LOPSA/trainers/employers. LOPSA *does* have 'cachet' with at least part of the sysadmin community (mainly *nix sysadmins at this time), and people who are new to the profession could use some guidance in choosing useful training. Calling it a recommendation rather than an approval would make us appear less pretentious and more collaborative with the training organisations. These organisations don't need our 'approval' to operate. - 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/
