Re: [Cert] Re: PostgreSQL Certification - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

Hi all,


First of all, I dumbly press the "reply-all" button, since, I *really
don't know* what is the final concensus in there!!

I read on different places that some are pros others are cons of a
separate maling-list.

My point is that I'd like people criticize this stop now, and
participate in the very discussion...

>>> how can we determine which companies are certified from the beginning?
>>> i think it makes no sense to push redhat, for instance, through a
>>> certification process as they have tom and some others :).
>>
>> I'm not sure if they actually do have any others, but having Tom
>> certainly doesn't mean that RedHats' support staff (who may have no
>> idea who Tom is) have any clue about what they are doing.
> you are absolutely true ...

Yes, we all think the same. Dave is absolutely true there.

> what i am trying to point out is the following: imagine simon riggs or
> yourself. you are definitely guys who should be allowed to certify people.
> so, somehow we have to "flag" people like you to allow them to issue
> certifications ...
>
> i would suggest that individual or companies who have contributed codes
> to the postgresql backend (or other major pg project like pgadmin,
> dbi-link or whatever) should have some "gold" status and that only those
> people are actually allowed to certify other people. this would help us
> to make sure that we don't have too many "wonnabies" around and we can
> ensure top quality.

I disagree on this point.

To me, we are discussing certification on a user-end point of view.

I want DBAs to be certified, not a certificate of PostgreSQL hacking.
Sure, PostgreSQL hackers are good at PostgreSQL DBA... But companies
don't want PostgreSQL hackers to manage their databases, they want DBAs.

> i would suggest the policy: "if you want to certify people, send us a
> patch proving that you know how pg really works". this would give the
> entire thing a really professional look and it would be a very straight
> and easy rule.

I disagree completely. You'll have less than 10 companies certified
worldwide then. And less than a few hundred of ceritified "PostgreSQL
hackers", what the industry really don't care about.

CTO want to hire PostgreSQL DBAs and with a right certification program,
they'll have a paper to ask them...

In the same idea:

 - a TOEFL (or TOIC) relates your knowledge in English
 - a driving licence relates your knowledge of driving a car
 - etc....

A PostgreSQL certification relates your knowledge in managing PostgreSQL
databases, not how PostgreSQL is coded.

> if we don't ensure top quality, the entire thing is worthless. if every
> half-professional is allowed to certify, we can already stop before we
> start.

I know thats not what you wanted to tell us, but Its a kind of rudeness
to me reading this.

Saying that top quality is only achieved with PostgreSQL coding, and
that all others are half-professional is an insult to me.

> most guys on this list here have written one or the other patch in the
> past so it should be fine ...
> how about that?

Most guys on this list? I think thats the contrary.

But please admit we are discussing the PostgreSQL certification on the
end-user point of view!!

I mean I want DBAs to have a paper that "certificate" they have enough
knowledge in PostgreSQL to manage database upon this technology the
right way.

> many thanks,
> hans

Cheers,

--
Jean-Paul Argudo
www.PostgreSQLFr.org
www.Dalibo.com