Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Certification only; stay out of training :-)
Sorry the rant was not clear; I expect the test taker to be proficient at QGIS. I was just taking the time to describe how the test would be different from a normal certification test. The actual testing criteria would need to be set by those offering training courses; or perhaps by the QGIS PMC? My own take is that: 1) The vast majority of the test would be devoted to using the application; covering common GIS tasks; and a few advanced ones to get a spread - I assume the visual results could be added as attachments for review. - I would expect many of the questions to be of the form "download the natural earth countries" and produce this visual; send us your qgis project file for review - Or here is a range of web services publishing world health organisation; answer the following questions 2) I assume a certification program would have a number of levels. - I would only think of someone building the system from scratch to apply to a server product like GeoServer or MapServer where a user needs to apply a security fix *now* (if you are certified you should not have to hire a consultant or wait for the next nightly build - grab the patch from the issue tracker and get the servers back online!) 3) Even for the "skills and knowledge in using the product in question" we would need to cover familiarity with how to communicate and where to find answers. - I would expect the test to cover material beyond that in the training course requiring test taker to use the website correctly; possibly to look up information on an older version of QGIS? - You may also wish to have them check the SLD specification to show that they know where the OGC docs are? This could even be by way of updating an SLD file to be compatible with an older version of QGIS that does not support the interpolate function from SE? - As for how to handle this - perhaps asking test takers to submit resources used during the test (and explain that they are part of the content being tested). It is a little bit more difficult if QGIS supports an IRC channel; perhaps they could attach IRC logs. Still the above discussion is one for the group setting the certification criteria; I was more interested in the foundation (as a rule) stress the open source and community involvement side of certification. In part so that those earning certification are actually useful to their employers. -- Jody Garnett On Monday, 13 June 2011 at 10:40 PM, Stephen Woodbridge wrote: > Jody, > > What are you trying to certify the test taker is proficient at? > > The above seems to focus on OpenSource developemt skills, but I would > think that QGIS v1 certification should be more focused on how > proficient that take is with QGIS v1. So there is probably two levels of > skill that the test should identify. > > 1. skill and knowledge in using the product in question > 2. skill and knowledge in developing and product process of development > said product > > -Steve > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org (mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org) > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Certification only; stay out of training :-)
On 6/13/2011 4:41 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: Indeed the main benefit of certification here would be as an income draw to keep OSGeo going. This is also interesting: currently we are using the surplus from courses to partly finance our (mainly QGIS) development. I do not think redirecting these resources to OSGeo would be a clever think to do. There is scope for competition between OSGeo and individual project, which is no good. I don't think anybody is interested in the foundation competing with existing training courses. (Indeed training is one of the few places where any cost recovery on the udig project occurs). That said if you don't want OSGeo competing in training - how would you like to pay for the foundation? I am not sure if your organisation sponsors OSGeo? I don't think my employer does (preferring to volunteer marketing effort); and I don't personally sponsor the foundation (preferring volunteer effort myself). So this is the nice part about certification: - it would make your training courses stronger (ie more attractive to customers) - it makes training an easier thing to sell (take training as one step towards getting ready for certification) - it would make QGIS more attractive (as a technology in which certification was available) - it provides the foundation with a revenue stream that does not compete with any of the member organisations (Indeed certification is a "service" that very few organisations could offer credibly?) From the QGIS standpoint the benefit for you really is focused on those first couple of points; certifications would be an additional activity the foundation could perform that would make your training courses more valuable. My own thoughts on this (using your project as an example): 1. Testing criteria - organisations offering QGSI training are asked to supply criteria to use for the certification process (If your organisation wants to be involved this is where you would take part) - the foundation pays for someone to write the test material for a specific qgis release (perhaps you? perhaps another vendor?) - the test is passed around to those supplying QGIS certification criteria for review; production of an answer key etc... 2. Next time you do a training course - offer your customer the option of either: a) taking the certification tests at a later date (you can pass on the foundation contact details; and get a 30% cut in thanks for the referral) b) arranging for a "bulk purchase" where you can offer your customer a discount for doing it then and their (perhaps give the customer a 20% discount to make it more attractive). You would need to play with the numbers to make this attractive (so customers don't just ordering the test for their top people). 3. Each month the foundation hires one of the organisation that defined the testing criteria to mark the tests a) a month is chosen to have enough tests together in one spot to make effective use of time b) the organisation hired should be a set rotation to be "fair" c) the organisation hired should probably not be responsible for the training of any of the students being marked in order to keep this as independent as possible 4. Marking should be brutal a) the idea is to force a spread so that potential employers can actually respect the certification b) cover open source activities (bug submission, contribution to documentation, participation on the user list). If it is any kind of advanced certification this goes into building the application from source code, applying a patch and building locally (can submit a screen snap of the result), links to accepted submissions etc... c) How brutal? How about if they get everything right they end up with 80%; the last 10% is there to allow markers to recognise "outstanding" d) if you really want to soften the blow you can provide different levels of certification out of the same test (confusion may not be worth it; easier to fail people and ask them to try again) 5. Updates to certification should be cheaper and repeatable a) as each release comes out the certification criteria should be updated b) a cheaper rate for "repeat customers" should be available - to encourage this both as a revenue stream - and as a certification process that employers can trust to be update to date. Why hire someone certified in QGIS 1.6 when QGIS 3 has been released? c) the cheaper rate should also be available to those repeating the same test (partly to soften the blow due to the expected failure rate) The other scenario for using the certification tests is: 3) Next time you hire someone a) Buy a "bulk purchase" of tests b) Ask applicants to take the test; and submit review (this is nice for them because it is on your dime; and nice for you as you get an objective evaluation) c) The foundation arranges for someone to mark this pronto as part of the service; probably only returning details on the top five candidates d) The foundation could change more to access test results in detail
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Certification only; stay out of training :-)
Thanks for putting up with my rant(s); I gave up on email and assembled this stuff into a blog post: - http://how2map.blogspot.com/2011/06/osgeo-stay-out-of-training-pros-and.html Jody ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Certification only; stay out of training :-)
> > Indeed the main benefit of certification here would be as an income draw to > > keep > > OSGeo going. > This is also interesting: currently we are using the surplus from courses to > partly > finance our (mainly QGIS) development. I do not think redirecting these > resources to > OSGeo would be a clever think to do. There is scope for competition between > OSGeo and > individual project, which is no good. I don't think anybody is interested in the foundation competing with existing training courses. (Indeed training is one of the few places where any cost recovery on the udig project occurs). That said if you don't want OSGeo competing in training - how would you like to pay for the foundation? I am not sure if your organisation sponsors OSGeo? I don't think my employer does (preferring to volunteer marketing effort); and I don't personally sponsor the foundation (preferring volunteer effort myself). So this is the nice part about certification: - it would make your training courses stronger (ie more attractive to customers) - it makes training an easier thing to sell (take training as one step towards getting ready for certification) - it would make QGIS more attractive (as a technology in which certification was available) - it provides the foundation with a revenue stream that does not compete with any of the member organisations (Indeed certification is a "service" that very few organisations could offer credibly?) >From the QGIS standpoint the benefit for you really is focused on those first >couple of points; certifications would be an additional activity the >foundation could perform that would make your training courses more valuable. My own thoughts on this (using your project as an example): 1. Testing criteria - organisations offering QGSI training are asked to supply criteria to use for the certification process (If your organisation wants to be involved this is where you would take part) - the foundation pays for someone to write the test material for a specific qgis release (perhaps you? perhaps another vendor?) - the test is passed around to those supplying QGIS certification criteria for review; production of an answer key etc... 2. Next time you do a training course - offer your customer the option of either: a) taking the certification tests at a later date (you can pass on the foundation contact details; and get a 30% cut in thanks for the referral) b) arranging for a "bulk purchase" where you can offer your customer a discount for doing it then and their (perhaps give the customer a 20% discount to make it more attractive). You would need to play with the numbers to make this attractive (so customers don't just ordering the test for their top people). 3. Each month the foundation hires one of the organisation that defined the testing criteria to mark the tests a) a month is chosen to have enough tests together in one spot to make effective use of time b) the organisation hired should be a set rotation to be "fair" c) the organisation hired should probably not be responsible for the training of any of the students being marked in order to keep this as independent as possible 4. Marking should be brutal a) the idea is to force a spread so that potential employers can actually respect the certification b) cover open source activities (bug submission, contribution to documentation, participation on the user list). If it is any kind of advanced certification this goes into building the application from source code, applying a patch and building locally (can submit a screen snap of the result), links to accepted submissions etc... c) How brutal? How about if they get everything right they end up with 80%; the last 10% is there to allow markers to recognise "outstanding" d) if you really want to soften the blow you can provide different levels of certification out of the same test (confusion may not be worth it; easier to fail people and ask them to try again) 5. Updates to certification should be cheaper and repeatable a) as each release comes out the certification criteria should be updated b) a cheaper rate for "repeat customers" should be available - to encourage this both as a revenue stream - and as a certification process that employers can trust to be update to date. Why hire someone certified in QGIS 1.6 when QGIS 3 has been released? c) the cheaper rate should also be available to those repeating the same test (partly to soften the blow due to the expected failure rate) The other scenario for using the certification tests is: 3) Next time you hire someone a) Buy a "bulk purchase" of tests b) Ask applicants to take the test; and submit review (this is nice for them because it is on your dime; and nice for you as you get an objective evaluation) c) The foundation arranges for someone to mark this pronto as part of the service; probably only returning details on the top five candidates d) The foundation could change more to access
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Certification only; stay out of training :-)
Il 12/06/2011 16:56, Jody Garnett ha scritto: > Indeed the main benefit of certification here would be as an income draw to > keep > OSGeo going. This is also interesting: currently we are using the surplus from courses to partly finance our (mainly QGIS) development. I do not think redirecting these resources to OSGeo would be a clever think to do. There is scope for competition between OSGeo and individual project, which is no good. All the best. -- Paolo Cavallini: http://www.faunalia.it/pc ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Certification only; stay out of training :-)
Totally agree, the foundation should provide an environment that connects agencies, organizations, providers, and members while improving the breadth and quality of oss geospatial solutions. We already have an impressive amount of volunteers and contributors on the various committees and projects. Imposing 'requirements' on volunteer efforts is a non-starter in my mind. There are many good discussions on how we could do more if we had resources. We want to encourage companies that support the open source business model. We can add value to government agencies and larger corporations by vetting projects, policies, and processes. But that gets into a different discussion on how we attract financial sponsorship and the value proposition for those sponsors. Mark On Jun 12, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > While I concur (I don't want to see the foundation set itself up in > competition ) there may yet still be a useful roll to play. > > What I cannot figure out is how the foundation could expect to make any money > from this angle ... any figuring of costs I go through makes it look like a > massive effort. > > As for the useful role: If OSGeo was able to supply a certification test, > provide independent marking, and issue the resulting certification it may > actually complement existing training offerings the existing "professionals > and enterprises". This would both validate the training offered; and act as a > competitive advantage - right now given a choice between two training courses > people will often choose the option that gives them a chance at sitting a > certification at the end (especially if they have a limited budget and don't > really care what it is they are learning). > > A couple of things are clear to me about this discussion: > a) I *hate* certifications; I feel they prey on the disadvantaged of our > industry right when they are weakest (this goes for both job hunters and > those going through a hiring process) > b) certifications are really required in different markets around the world > (especially when industry has lost confidence in the meaning of a university > degree). > > With the above in mind I feel that certifications will happen; and given a > choice I would rather it happen at the foundation level (rather than getting > people certified in different product stacks). > > So while I have some mechanics in mind (certification to include the open > source process; not only use; demonstrate ability; aim for a 50% pass rate > for the certification to mean something; offer "bulk" discount to groups > wishing to use tests at at the end of a training course; or groups wishing to > use test as part of a hiring process). > > What I cannot figure out is where the profit is; or how to pay for people's > involvement. While groups offering training could collaborate (and possible > act in a double blind capability to mark results); it would probably require > some paid hours to get projects to look at the tests and make sure they mean > something at the end of the day. > > Pricing the tests would probably be within market norms; and I would expect a > much cheaper retry cost (possibly just covering marking time) if we manage to > make the marking process brutal enough to be useful to potential employers. > > One thing we have a chance to do well here is stress the soft "open source" > skills that a potential employee must have in order to be sucessful. Rather > than only mechanical questions about configuration and use. Examples: link to > 3 questions you have answered on the user list; two issues you have reported > etc (which can be marked for completeness etc...). > > Finally you have the annoyance for companies that are already established in > this space of having the possibility of competing with new groups that have > picked up their certifications and appear better "on paper". I cannot > honestly have much sympathy here, competition is as competition does, best > advice would be to help define the certification (and allow that to be placed > on a resume). > > -- > Jody Garnett > > On Friday, 10 June 2011 at 4:07 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote: > >> Il 09/06/2011 21:38, Tyler Mitchell ha scritto: >> >>> Anyone else thinking about this or want to weigh-in on what their thoughts >>> were? >> >> If this competes with the activities the professionals and enterprises are >> currently >> offering, -1. We want OSGeo to support our work, not to compete with it. >> This would >> have a number of negative consequences, IMHO. >> All the best. >> -- >> Paolo Cavallini: http://www.faunalia.it/pc >> ___ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Certification only; stay out of training :-)
> Agreed. What we want, at osgeo level, it to have fair competition, and to > favour > those who invest back in OS development. Here is the tricky part; certification does not help this (unless we make a really good effort to stress the soft skills; and make such involvement part of the certification process). Indeed the main benefit of certification here would be as an income draw to keep OSGeo going. And until I can see a decent set of numbers I am worried that certification will be yet another example of how the foundation can help promote open source; and not an example of how the foundation can afford to promote open source. Jody ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Certification only; stay out of training :-)
Il 12/06/2011 15:31, Jody Garnett ha scritto: > What I cannot figure out is where the profit is; or how to pay for people's > involvement. A crucial point, I guess. > Pricing the tests would probably be within market norms; and I would expect a > much > cheaper retry cost (possibly just covering marking time) if we manage to make > the > marking process brutal enough to be useful to potential employers. The best example I know of it this: http://www.lpi.org/ I'd avoid reinventing the wheel, and would follow a well trodden path. > One thing we have a chance to do well here is stress the soft "open source" > skills > that a potential employee must have in order to be sucessful. Agreed. > Finally you have the annoyance for companies that are already established in > this > space of having the possibility of competing with new groups that have picked > up > their certifications and appear better "on paper". I cannot honestly have much > sympathy here, competition is as competition does Agreed. What we want, at osgeo level, it to have fair competition, and to favour those who invest back in OS development rather than parasites (we have already many of them around, we do not need to help them). All the best. -- Paolo Cavallini: http://www.faunalia.it/pc ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[OSGeo-Discuss] Certification only; stay out of training :-)
While I concur (I don't want to see the foundation set itself up in competition ) there may yet still be a useful roll to play. What I cannot figure out is how the foundation could expect to make any money from this angle ... any figuring of costs I go through makes it look like a massive effort. As for the useful role: If OSGeo was able to supply a certification test, provide independent marking, and issue the resulting certification it may actually complement existing training offerings the existing "professionals and enterprises". This would both validate the training offered; and act as a competitive advantage - right now given a choice between two training courses people will often choose the option that gives them a chance at sitting a certification at the end (especially if they have a limited budget and don't really care what it is they are learning). A couple of things are clear to me about this discussion: a) I *hate* certifications; I feel they prey on the disadvantaged of our industry right when they are weakest (this goes for both job hunters and those going through a hiring process) b) certifications are really required in different markets around the world (especially when industry has lost confidence in the meaning of a university degree). With the above in mind I feel that certifications will happen; and given a choice I would rather it happen at the foundation level (rather than getting people certified in different product stacks). So while I have some mechanics in mind (certification to include the open source process; not only use; demonstrate ability; aim for a 50% pass rate for the certification to mean something; offer "bulk" discount to groups wishing to use tests at at the end of a training course; or groups wishing to use test as part of a hiring process). What I cannot figure out is where the profit is; or how to pay for people's involvement. While groups offering training could collaborate (and possible act in a double blind capability to mark results); it would probably require some paid hours to get projects to look at the tests and make sure they mean something at the end of the day. Pricing the tests would probably be within market norms; and I would expect a much cheaper retry cost (possibly just covering marking time) if we manage to make the marking process brutal enough to be useful to potential employers. One thing we have a chance to do well here is stress the soft "open source" skills that a potential employee must have in order to be sucessful. Rather than only mechanical questions about configuration and use. Examples: link to 3 questions you have answered on the user list; two issues you have reported etc (which can be marked for completeness etc...). Finally you have the annoyance for companies that are already established in this space of having the possibility of competing with new groups that have picked up their certifications and appear better "on paper". I cannot honestly have much sympathy here, competition is as competition does, best advice would be to help define the certification (and allow that to be placed on a resume). -- Jody Garnett On Friday, 10 June 2011 at 4:07 PM, Paolo Cavallini wrote: > Il 09/06/2011 21:38, Tyler Mitchell ha scritto: > > > Anyone else thinking about this or want to weigh-in on what their thoughts > > were? > > If this competes with the activities the professionals and enterprises are > currently > offering, -1. We want OSGeo to support our work, not to compete with it. This > would > have a number of negative consequences, IMHO. > All the best. > -- > Paolo Cavallini: http://www.faunalia.it/pc > ___ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org (mailto:Discuss@lists.osgeo.org) > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
