On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 07:14:44PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 08:52:04AM -0500, Ben Okopnik wrote: > > > > Hmm. Not trying to start a war, just curious; does "proven" mean "vetted by > > you"? I'm sure you're amply qualified to judge the quality of instruction, > > etc., but this would severely limit the number of possible "proven"s. > > Let's peel back the onion a wee bit, shall we? This isn't a difficult > issue, nor does it require that we count the number of angels that can > fit on the head of a llama. I disagree. It _is_ a difficult issue if you're trying to be fair to people who are qualified while trying to eliminate those who aren't. Drawing that line, which can become very narrow in places, would require either personal experience with a given trainer - or an arbitrary decision, based on possibly incorrect information.
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 01:05:10PM -0800, brian d foy wrote: > > everyone on http://www.perl.org/phbs/training.html has > > a proven record of training and i would not hestiate to > > recommend any of them. i can't be so sure of other companies, > > so i don't recommend them. ....and this is why I asked the question. What the above says is that those whom Brian would not hesitate to recommend - whether through personal knowledge or through whatever other mechanism he chooses to qualify them - are the entire field of those who will be recommended at the site. Which part of my question was unclear, or required further elucidation? > ...clarified here: > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:54:19AM -0500, _brian_d_foy wrote: > > no. proven just means that you actually teach Perl, which is very > > different from will-teach-Perl-if-i-get-paid-to. as far as www.perl.org > > goes, you should also be able to satisfy more than just a local > > customer base. > > Given these statements, "proven record of training" in the realm > of Perl would mean to me: > 1) you've actually trained people before > 2) you've taught them Perl > 3) both of these statements are verifiable And this was the crux of my question: verifiable by?... > This necessarily discounts those who pass themselves off as "trainers" > when in fact they have done little more than flip slides and read them > aloud -- something *very* different than standing in front of a > group for days at a time, running hands on labs, answering questions > on the spot and imparting some skills to that group. > > This also necessarily discounts those who train, but do not train > Perl. That is, they have an a la carte menu of services that > includes lots of buzzwords, but the trainers don't actually have > competance in all of those areas (at least in Perl, as far as we > are concerned). Or, they offer Perl training and pass themselves > off as competant, but in fact are not competant (in Perl, as far as > as we are concerned). I will agree that all of the above would need to be eliminated from any list of competent Perl trainers. My interest is in _how_ this is to be done. I don't think that wholesale rejection of everyone except a close circle of personal aquaintances is a particularly wonderful way to do it. > Now, can we *>PLEASE<* stop with the semantic games? I'm not sure who you're speaking to here; it certainly can't be me. How about directing your comments to those to whom they apply? Ben Okopnik -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- I was under medication when I made the decision not to burn the tapes. -- President Richard Nixon
