On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 02:37:26PM -0500, Elaine -HFB- Ashton wrote:
> Adam Turoff [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
> *>> Doesn't this indicate that we should be in the business of offering
> *>> not-for-profit Perl certification (without offering training), both
> *>> as a good in and of itself and also to establish a Good Example for
> *>> others?
> *>
> *>Do you propose that we create a certification agency that would
> *>disallow someone from programming in Perl? What egregious lapse
> *>would cause that to happen -- and what would/should we classify as
> *>egregious? None of the IT certifications I've seen have provisions
> *>for that, save the limited lifespan of certification credentials.
>
> Non-profit and not-for-profit are two different things.
That irrelevant. John's examples of medical, legal, accounting
and professional engineering certifications aren't good examples
to follow for tech certifications. Citing them as proof that
certification is good is a nonsequitur because those agencies have
the power to revoke a certification for egregious actions or
inability to stay reasonably current. Such certifications share
very little with tech certifications except in the aspect that they
certify people as having a specific set of skills.
No IT certification organ I've seen to date has that power, nor
should it (modulo expiry of certification). That difference has
nothing to do with non-profit vs. not-for-profit vs. for-profit
status.
Z.
