cert discussion

[Hal Miller <hal@tera.tera.com>]

Hi folks,

I will try to respond to the discussion on this list of late.  My comments
will be "from the President", thus as a representative of the Board,
although I ask that you bear in mind that they're colored by my personal
views.  If the other members of the Board remember things a little
differently, I'm sure they'll speak up.  Sure nice to see the list alive!

First, it is clear to me that the most important thing we in SAGE can do
is to work on our education program.  Frankly, speaking as an individual,
I've been somewhat disappointed with our lack of progress on this, and
plan to work it harder myself this year.  I don't think that we are stuck
working only one issue, though, and the certification announcement is
merely "progress" on a simultaneous front.  I don't intend for it to push
education into the background.  Interestingly, the survey showed the
strongest support for our involvement in standards, and for my "run up
the flagpole" idea about "How-To Notes".  We will be working those too.

Next, the most important thing the Board can do is to get (as best it
can) a feel for the needs/desires of the membership, and to set direction
for programs to be implemented to meet those desires/needs.  Whether we
on the Board have a "mandate" to implement certification or not will be
covered below, but I believe that the Board's duty to act implies both
the responsibility and authority to take the action we did.

So, what exactly was that action?  We didn't:
  - require certification for membership
  - establish a plan that would require people to pay anything to anyone
  - create "Yet Another CNE or MSCE"
  - establish a comprehensive "Certified System Administrator"
We did:
  - agree to have a team of folks determine a set of Job Description Level
    One items that are both "acceptably" common to most sysadmins and in
    some way "measurable" sufficiently to come up with a program that can
    result in a certification at a rather basic level of system administration
  - agree to proceed toward a "single-topic" recognition program a la Pat
    Wilson's Merit Badges
  - agree to further investigate the feasibility of establishing a program
    of review and "certification" of educational programs that are already
    putting out what they believe to be "generic" sysadmin certificates
    based on their own courses
  - agree to investigate ways of having a certification program administered
    effectively and inexpensively

So what does this mean?  We are going to form a team to "implement" the
direction we have supplied.  Volunteers will be solicited shortly, and
this is a great opportunity to both ensure your views are heard and included,
and to give community service to your colleagues.  I'll ask that each
of you who wishes to be involved consider first, VERY CAREFULLY, your
ability to dedicate time and energy to the project.  It means also that
we are not planning to establish a program that will become exclusive
(not exclude those who don't participate, from anything either within SAGE
or outside), nor one that will (at least in the foreseeable future) become
completely "comprehensive" as we are unable to see any way at this point to
accomplish that.  I see this primarily as a reinforcement of the upcoming
education programs, to "ensure" some minimal level of competence in overall
ability/knowledge.  Would I hire someone solely because of their holding such a
certificate?  No way.  It would, though, give me reason to look more closely
at their "real" qualifications, whereas if I am faced (I've been there) with
160+ applicants for a single junior position, I need something to help with
the preselection process.  As has been pointed out, there are folks out
there (even if not on this list) to whom such a certificate IS important.

I don't see this as "competition" to the vendor-specific plans.  I think it
is different, in that what we come up with is supposed to be fairly generic
and applicable across the spectrum, as well as across "versions" (as one
correspondent discussed).  I'm afraid that without some such program in
place, altogether too many employers will insist on one of the vendor-
specific certifications as a condition of hiring, without understanding
what those really mean/don't mean.  I see our allowing that to occur without
some effort to supply a better alternative as a disservice to our membership.

As I have noted in just about every article I've written (and I'm certainly
not alone) this is the most controversial topic SAGE has tackled.  In all
of our efforts to ascertain the feeling of the membership, we have determined
that a majority want some form of certification.  The issue has been bandied
about and discussed for years.  We must recognize the depth of dissent, but at
the same time, honor the will of the majority.  I think the number of "us
SAGEers" who feel that certification is the most important issue we
face, and/or that we must have some "absolute" and "completely comprehensive"
plan, is very small.  But, this doesn't mean the Board can afford to ignore,
or to continue to avoid tackling the task.

A couple of you have asked about the survey results.  I have already
submitted a ;login: article summarizing the survey, and this should be
in the next mailing.  This particular survey went only to this mailing
list, and I had a 13% return over the course of 3 weeks.  Given that
the results matched the BoF/hallway/email contacts we Board members
have been getting all along, we went ahead.  My understanding is that a
5% return is considered excellent--I'm not a survey expert--but congratulate
you folks for an outstanding showing.  Does this constitute a "mandate"?
What is a "mandate"?  Is a "mandate" even necessary if a majority of those
willing to respond to repeated requests for feedback (;login: articles,
sage-members and sage-announce emailings, SAGE News comments as they used
to be carried on the web page, discussions at BoFs at conferences, email
sent directly to Board members, etc.) have indicated a desire for this?

I am, by nature, a consensus-builder.  I wish I could get unanimous support
for everything.  Not likely to ever occur in SAGE on this topic.  I am proud
of the other 6 members of this Board for their courage and willingness in
tackling the issue.  I welcome this discussion, in this forum and any other.
If we on the Board can be convinced that the majority really feel differently
from the way it has thus far been displayed to us, we would of course have to
review our decision.
-- 
Hal Miller
President, SAGE Board of Directors
halm@usenix.org