On 10/30/2015 12:41 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
>> I think this should be a closed list run by the Linux Foundation.
>
> Why's that? I'm willing to put up a list we can use for discussion.
That's also fine. I just mean "not an @postgresql.org list".
>> Because some members of the community have a conflict of interest, I'm
>> not certain we can have a certification endorsed by "the whole community".
>
> Depends on what you call "endorsed". Nobody expects us to say this is the one
> and only.
I'm just saying that asking the EDB staff to endorse a certification
which competes with EDB's certification is not something I personally
would do.
>
>> I would be willing to review the test questions (and suggest some), as
>> well as reviewing overall coverage.
>
> Ok, thanks. BTW we're not talking questions here, but tasks to be performed.
Oh, does LF have the ability to administer that kind of test? That
would be awesome.
>> However, the first question we should have with this is "what problem
>> are we solving?"
>>
>> That is, are the EnterpriseDB/SRA/etc. certifications not good enough?
>
> At the very least they are not vendor neutral.
>
>> to make money off PostgreSQL. If there is a deficiency, we need to make
>> sure that an LF certification will address that specific deficiency.
>
> Again, by its very setup I think it solves the major problem.
You haven't said what that problem is?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
