On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Italo Vignoli <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Ryley wrote: > >> 1. It continues to encourage the commodification of techincal >> personnel. People just become "certs" as opposed to intelligent, >> independent individuals with value to bring to an organization. This >> is a mindset that *must* be broken for FLOSS to be viable. > > I totally disagree. Certification is about competence of members and > third parties, in order to allow them to sell their services and make > money out of their competence. Without the recognition of competence, > free software is not going to build any business for his volunteers.
Can you explain to me how "competence" can be assessed in the absence of a clearly defined specification? Can you also clarify why to you think that the TDF is competent to make that decision, instead of leaving it up to a discussion between potential buyers and vendors? In my prior career, I've received training to make assessments on whether someone is capable of returning to work, whether he/she should receive continued compensation and rehabilitation, or if he/she has reached a plateau and other courses of action need to be explored. Assessing the "fit" between person and environment is hard enough, and I would not make any *professional* recommendations without seeing exactly what the work called for, what the employer expected, what the employee thought, and what I could actually obeserve the employee do. It is *absurd* to believe that some computer based test can determine if a particular technologist is *competent* without a more thorough assessment. If these methods worked so well, why is it that IBM repored just a few years ago that the failure of IT projects is still around 65%? What is a valuable solution for a particular agent (which could be a person or group of people) depends upon the context. It is cliche in IT to talk about "certified" people who cannot perform in the workplace. We even have "certified life coaches" for goodness sake! Software is not a widget that is amenable to a cookbook, unthinking application of statistical process control. Nor is the selection and implementation of effective technical people something that can be "assessed" via Computer Assisted Testing. I could spend hours writing out case studies where this process of "certification" has lead to the commodification of various trades and professions, but I won't. > Idealistic concepts like recognition of individual value are not leading > anywhere, as history shows. Not leading anywhere for whom? >> Do you want to engage in life or death struggle every day, where >> either you chop your opponent's head off, or he chops yours? > > The concept is exactly the opposite. Competence allows to sell services > at a fair rate. Look at RedHat: they certify the competence of their > third parties, and their third parties build a business on it. Who determines what is "fair?" Red Hat is a poor example. They are a for profit company trying to build a brand and sell their services. Unfortunately, they are the *de facto* standard for assessing Linux competence, even when their assessment might be less than relevant. The LPI does not provide as much status. The TDF is a non profit trying to spur the adoption of open source software, and I would hope, provide an *entrepreneurial* outlet for independent developers to benefit the community and make a comfortable living being self employed, as opposed to being an employee. >> 2. In whose interest is the TDF working for -- the developers of LO >> and its extensions, or the corporate enterprise? > > TDF is working to create an ecosystem around LibreOffice, where members > - including developers, but also non developers - are able to monetize > their competence because it is recognized. Recognized by whom? Competence is in the eye of the beholder, not some objective quality that can be measured. I've worked in health care for over a decade, and I can tell you that two people will respond to *the same* treatment plan differently, depending upon who gives it to them. > Speaking of an ideal world where an independent organization is > certifying competence on behalf of the marketplace is like looking at > Alice in Wonderland as a business manual. Free software will never get > anywhere with theoretical visions. In whose interest is the TDF working, developers of software, or buyers? Because if you want to commodify open source software, you provide no incentive for anyone to open their code. It would be absolutely foolish for someone to release code to "the community" AND subject himself to arbitrary "certification." Code and publically available work *is* proof of competence -- or should be. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
