* alex ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> sorry, was unclear. robert proposed a meta-certification body which then
> gave the tests out to certifiers (netthink, iterative etc). this seems to
> me to be far too complicated and fragmented.
i think it was me that suggested this
>
> i think you need a single organisation which plays the difficult balancing
> act of:
>
> * being respected and trusted by the Perl community (there's no
> point if the Perl decision makers poo poo it)
hence the limitation to UK & ROI
> * has enough autonomy from the Perl community or transparency to
> not be perceived as a guild / closed shop (this accusation could
> be levelled very easily if the exam were perceived to be designed so that
> only an inner sanctum could possibly pass it)
it will be aimed at a base level, as i said earlier it at least initially
will not even consider skill levels, but just competency sections
> * has rich enough grading so that mere mortals can achieve some
i dont think it will be graded
> * being commercial - particularly focused on marketing the PCSE
> logo to training companies, logos and IT directors. I don't
> think a voluntary, well-meaning effort will achieve this.
nope, i don't agree here - i don't think this is easy but their is
precedent, YAPC::*
anyway i'm posting a proposal in a few mins
Greg
--
Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
