Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>David Grove writes:
>> What does it take to be considered of "master" status in a certain area
>
>Basically this: if you're good at doing something and want/need
>someone to help with it, then you should be able to ask for an
>apprentice.
>
>I'd say not to get too hung up on "master" and "apprentice", as all
>we're looking for is a way for people doing work to get assistants,
>and for the assistants to learn as they help.
Here is my two penny-worth on this thread.
A. There is room for Journeyman status in here - but that may be muddying
the waters too much. What I am getting at though is that the collection
of "masters" can probably make good use of coders/documenters/testers
that already have at least one of the basic skills sorted, but if there
are too many raw apprentices then we are going to get bogged down in
explaining "trivia".
B. The "master" / "apprentice" relationship is just that - it depends
how the people in question relate. As a potential "master" I am all
too aware that I am not skilled in teaching - usually because I don't
know what is obvious vs what is obscure - so anyone "taught" by me
has to ask questions rather than be lectured to.
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
