Thread: PostgreSQL Certification

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hey guys,

Myself and a small team of PostgreSQL contributors have started a new
community project for PostgreSQL Certification. It is just launching
but we wanted to get it out there so that people can join in on the
discussion now :).

For more information please visit:

http://www.postgresqlcertification.org/

Joshua D. Drake

- -- 
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ 
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHoPdMATb/zqfZUUQRAqhlAJ92rMzYpn+k4rGDXpd4WiZwJQcBNACfWNeg
0zPBFRb4yc6Idpj99PCcFbY=
=Spdr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Josh,

> Myself and a small team of PostgreSQL contributors have started a new
> community project for PostgreSQL Certification. It is just launching
> but we wanted to get it out there so that people can join in on the
> discussion now :).

Who else is in this?  Have you talked to the Venezualan folks?  SRA?

As you know, I'm strongly in favor of a good, generally respected
certification.  Let's get all of the interested folks on one project.

--Josh

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:17:43 -0800
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

Current broadcast members are:

Myself
Magnus
Robert
Chander (need to get him on the website)

Bruce has a pending invitation (which I didn't send yet)

I have not spoken with SRA or the Venezualan folks but am more than
happy to have them involved.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake
- -- 
The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ 
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHoPiMATb/zqfZUUQRAqMHAJsHop8kUqHkHRLJMjNFBIny+dIiYQCfXz19
fXELUEQ3khSifVR6JJaI3K8=
=N1BL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Josh,

> I have not spoken with SRA or the Venezualan folks but am more than
> happy to have them involved.

OK, I'll get you some contact info.

--Josh

Can you show us the goals of the PostgreSQL Certification ?
I always voted for the united PostgreSQL Certification program
(amin, developer) we could promote with the help of commercial companies.
In my opinion, common certificate, valid in all countries will be much more
useful than buttons. We have several good authors who can be sponsored to
write certification courses with the help of developers.

Oleg
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hey guys,
>
> Myself and a small team of PostgreSQL contributors have started a new
> community project for PostgreSQL Certification. It is just launching
> but we wanted to get it out there so that people can join in on the
> discussion now :).
>
> For more information please visit:
>
> http://www.postgresqlcertification.org/
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
> - --
> The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
> PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
> Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFHoPdMATb/zqfZUUQRAqhlAJ92rMzYpn+k4rGDXpd4WiZwJQcBNACfWNeg
> 0zPBFRb4yc6Idpj99PCcFbY=
> =Spdr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

     Regards,
         Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Josh,
>
>> Myself and a small team of PostgreSQL contributors have started a new
>> community project for PostgreSQL Certification. It is just launching
>> but we wanted to get it out there so that people can join in on the
>> discussion now :).
>
> Who else is in this?  Have you talked to the Venezualan folks?  SRA?
>
> As you know, I'm strongly in favor of a good, generally respected
> certification.  Let's get all of the interested folks on one project.

You may know that I'm part of the BSD Certification Group.  Proper
certification is not a trivial project.  I joined up.

--
Dan Langille - http://www.langille.org/
BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference: http://www.bsdcan.org/
PGCon  - The PostgreSQL Conference:    http://www.pgcon.org/

On January 30, 2008 08:03:14 pm Dan Langille wrote:
> You may know that I'm part of the BSD Certification Group.  Proper
> certification is not a trivial project.  I joined up.

Dan's right, the certification process is equal to the effort expended
administrating the PostgreSQL community. Whomever becomes the lead on this
must realize that this is potentially a full time job. As well, although SRA
is the best example we have currently of PostgreSQL 'testing/certification'
it is not the model that we should be looking at for an opensource
implementation. You want to contact Dru for advice, otherwise it will take
you two years just to get you up to speed (this is not an exaggeration) on
the issues.

Robert

> Josh,
>
> > Myself and a small team of PostgreSQL contributors have started a new
> > community project for PostgreSQL Certification. It is just launching
> > but we wanted to get it out there so that people can join in on the
> > discussion now :).
>
> Who else is in this?  Have you talked to the Venezualan folks?  SRA?
>
> As you know, I'm strongly in favor of a good, generally respected
> certification.  Let's get all of the interested folks on one project.

Up to now SRA OSS, Inc. Japan's certification has more than 1,000
examinees. I'm proud of this, but am not satisfied with this. From the
beginning of the certification, I have a dream that someday the
certification be managed by public entity, not by a private company
like us. Yes, that's my goal. So if Josh and his folks are very
serious about making a good certfication, I'm more than happy to help
them.

However running a certification programs (not just making examins) is
not a trivial work. Moreover it costs a lot of money (over $40,000 per
year in our case). Josh, how do you overcome those problems?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan

Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Josh,
>
> However running a certification programs (not just making examins) is
> not a trivial work. Moreover it costs a lot of money (over $40,000 per
> year in our case). Josh, how do you overcome those problems?

As the resources become required I am sure that I can make sure they are
provided.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

Well until now... i think i am the only venezuelan here.... i havent
been able to  locate Cesar Villanueva.... >.< anyone knows other
venezuelans arround?

Btw... i've joined the cert list aswell

2008/1/31, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 14:17:43 -0800
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>
> Current broadcast members are:
>
> Myself
> Magnus
> Robert
> Chander (need to get him on the website)
>
> Bruce has a pending invitation (which I didn't send yet)
>
> I have not spoken with SRA or the Venezualan folks but am more than
> happy to have them involved.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
> - --
> The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/
> PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
> Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFHoPiMATb/zqfZUUQRAqMHAJsHop8kUqHkHRLJMjNFBIny+dIiYQCfXz19
> fXELUEQ3khSifVR6JJaI3K8=
> =N1BL
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

Santiago Zarate wrote:
> Well until now... i think i am the only venezuelan here.... i havent
> been able to  locate Cesar Villanueva.... >.< anyone knows other
> venezuelans arround?

I think they are talking about Ricardo Strusberg.  He was interested in
setting up a Pg training/certification program.

Regarding Cesar Villanueva, I bet you can reach him at
ve@postgresql.org.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

Well i'm also want to be PostgreSQL Certificated, Zarate always said that he is the only one in Venezuela, but we are several people who want to have certified on PostgreSQL

Roberto, was talking about the pgsl-advocacy list...

Anyway chech the mail about the PUG i sent you few months ago... if
you dont have it mailme... ill froward it to you... the same for any
other venezuelan interested in the PUG/list :p


@alvaro done it few weeks ago... and got a mailbox error stuff...
anyway wrote to him this evening again.. lets see
2008/2/2, Roberto Tortolero <roberto.tortolero@gmail.com>:
> Well i'm also want to be PostgreSQL Certificated, Zarate always said that he
> is the only one in Venezuela, but we are several people who want to have
> certified on PostgreSQL
>
>
> On Feb 1, 2008 4:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Santiago Zarate wrote:
> > > Well until now... i think i am the only venezuelan here.... i havent
> > > been able to  locate Cesar Villanueva.... >.< anyone knows other
> > > venezuelans arround?
> >
> > I think they are talking about Ricardo Strusberg.  He was interested in
> > setting up a Pg training/certification program.
> >
> > Regarding Cesar Villanueva, I bet you can reach him at
> > ve@postgresql.org.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alvaro Herrera
> http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> > The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> >
> >               http://archives.postgresql.org/
> >
>
>

Le Wednesday 30 January 2008 23:16:42 Joshua D. Drake, vous avez écrit :
> Hey guys,
>
> Myself and a small team of PostgreSQL contributors have started a new
> community project for PostgreSQL Certification. It is just launching
> but we wanted to get it out there so that people can join in on the
> discussion now :).
>

This is a great idea ! You can count on me for french translation.

May i suggest that we use a wiki in addition to the mailing-list ?
To me, wiki-based working seems more efficient for tasks like collective
brainstorming or collaborative writing.


--
damien clochard
http://dalibo.org | http://dalibo.com

Hi all,

First of all, thanks to Josuah to start this usefull and long time
waited project :-)

Oleg Bartunov wrote :
> Can you show us the goals of the PostgreSQL Certification ?

To me, there are two things Id like to be "PostgreSQL Certified":

 - individuals
 - companies

Id really prefer my company be certified by the community rather than by
a company, despite the full respect I have in SRA's engagement in
PostgreSQL and that we all know their contributions.

> I always voted for the united PostgreSQL Certification program (amin,
> developer) we could promote with the help of commercial companies.

Count on us (Dalibo) and us (PostgreSQLFr non-profit).

> In my opinion, common certificate, valid in all countries will be much more
> useful than buttons.

Definitely. We discussed the topic at Prato. We were talking there about
it could be a project inside PostgreSQL-Europe.

I'd be more than happy if this could be a Worldwide project instead.

> We have several good authors who can be sponsored
> to write certification courses with the help of developers.

Yes, I think so. Dalibo could contribute too, on its own. I know some of
the non-profit that can contribute too.

> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Myself and a small team of PostgreSQL contributors have started a new
> community project for PostgreSQL Certification. It is just launching
> but we wanted to get it out there so that people can join in on the
> discussion now :).
>
> For more information please visit:
> http://www.postgresqlcertification.org/
> Joshua D. Drake

Thanks for such a good initiative, Josuah:

«Your subscription request has been received..»: let's talk about this
in the mailing-list :)

Cheers,

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

Argentina presente ;-)

Regards,
gb.-

On Feb 3, 2008 6:49 AM, Jean-Paul Argudo <jean-paul@argudo.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First of all, thanks to Josuah to start this usefull and long time
> waited project :-)
>
> Oleg Bartunov wrote :
> > Can you show us the goals of the PostgreSQL Certification ?
>
> To me, there are two things Id like to be "PostgreSQL Certified":
>
>  - individuals
>  - companies
>
> Id really prefer my company be certified by the community rather than by
> a company, despite the full respect I have in SRA's engagement in
> PostgreSQL and that we all know their contributions.
>
> > I always voted for the united PostgreSQL Certification program (amin,
> > developer) we could promote with the help of commercial companies.
>
> Count on us (Dalibo) and us (PostgreSQLFr non-profit).
>
> > In my opinion, common certificate, valid in all countries will be much more
> > useful than buttons.
>
> Definitely. We discussed the topic at Prato. We were talking there about
> it could be a project inside PostgreSQL-Europe.
>
> I'd be more than happy if this could be a Worldwide project instead.
>
> > We have several good authors who can be sponsored
> > to write certification courses with the help of developers.
>
> Yes, I think so. Dalibo could contribute too, on its own. I know some of
> the non-profit that can contribute too.
>
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > Myself and a small team of PostgreSQL contributors have started a new
> > community project for PostgreSQL Certification. It is just launching
> > but we wanted to get it out there so that people can join in on the
> > discussion now :).
> >
> > For more information please visit:
> > http://www.postgresqlcertification.org/
> > Joshua D. Drake
>
> Thanks for such a good initiative, Josuah:
>
> «Your subscription request has been received..»: let's talk about this
> in the mailing-list :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Jean-Paul Argudo
> www.PostgreSQLFr.org
> www.Dalibo.com
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>        subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>        message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>



--
Guido Barosio
-----------------------
http://www.globant.com
guido.barosio@globant.com

JPA,

> Id really prefer my company be certified by the community rather than by
> a company, despite the full respect I have in SRA's engagement in
> PostgreSQL and that we all know their contributions.

What would it mean for a company to be certified?

--Josh

Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Id really prefer my company be certified by the community rather than by
>> a company, despite the full respect I have in SRA's engagement in
>> PostgreSQL and that we all know their contributions.
> What would it mean for a company to be certified?
I'd hope it'd mean that I can have some degree of confidence
hiring that organization for Postgresql support.  No?

It seems to have very similar benefits as certifying individuals.

Microsoft seems to have something like that for their
partners in their "Database Management competency"
https://partner.microsoft.com/global/40012911

Hi all,

> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> What would it mean for a company to be certified?

> I'd hope it'd mean that I can have some degree of confidence
> hiring that organization for Postgresql support.  No?

Thats my point. A "PostgreSQL Certified Company" is just about a
brillant button on a company's web page, or a stamp on any commercial,
"certifying" the company has knowledge in PostgreSQL and has prooved it
has one.

I think a company could be "Certified" when it hires a certain number of
PostgreSQL "certified" individuals.

All the point is determining how much...

2 Certified DBAs on a 5 consultants company can be enough.

But 2 certified DBAs in a company of 100? 1000?

Yes, it'll be hard to define something right.

> It seems to have very similar benefits as certifying individuals.
>
> Microsoft seems to have something like that for their
> partners in their "Database Management competency"
> https://partner.microsoft.com/global/40012911

Oh yes, they do. They aren't the only to do so.

I was thinking also that only Certified PostgreSQL Training Companies
could pretend to prepare trainees for PostgreSQL Certification.

But I may go too far on this point...

The things I'd like this reflection to reach, on the "company
certification", are:

 - ensure a customer he's asking PostgreSQL support (services or other)
to a company with a prooved knowledge of PostgreSQL, if that customer
needs it, he should have it;

 - ensure an individual he will meet a good teacher in this company that
may help him right to take and pass the PostgreSQL Certification;

 - the label "certified {individual|company}" shouldn't be *ONLY*
buyable in any way... I mean, the quality of the company or the
knowledge of the individual should be the most important thing to get
the certification stamp...

 - many other things we could define!!?

About certifying companies:

-> Its *not* about marketing for us. But maybe a valuable marketing
media for the companies.

-> We *cannot* give that stamp to everyone giving an amount of money or
even time to the PostgreSQL project (wich are exactly the same to me:
time is money). It has to be really strict or it won't have any value.

-> This last idea doesn't mean we cannot ask for money *at all* to have
the companies certified. I think that certification could be *also* a
good way to grab money from companies and have them giving money to the
PG project via the way they want (SPI or local organizations).

But I know many of you will think that we musn't mix certification with
money at any time... I'm just telling you "heh, this could be a nice way
to have money to the project", not that we *must* take it.

My opinion is that if we only think about donations to "certify"
companies, we will wait for them a long, long... long time.

And sometimes, I'm a bit fed up of selling $5 mugs or $1 pins when I
know I need $200 for a banner or that I like to give $150 to a guy going
present PostgreSQL far from home, or even help guys at PG.De or PG.Uk :/

I know you'll tell me I have to ask companies here to donate. We did,
many times.

They all tell the same: "What I have for the money?" I respond "well,
you helps us a lot".... No need to say this is not what they wanna hear.

(------------------------------------------------------------------

About money: example: PostgreSQLFr 2007: see complete thing there, on
the annual resume of the general assembly we did a few days ago:

http://wiki.postgresqlfr.org/doku.php/ag_du_30_janvier_2008

Precisely, the chapter about money:

2007's PostgreSQLFr money:

Money @bank, 1st jan 2007: +786 €

  Expenses : -1 998 €
  Gains    : +1 665 €
  Result   : -  333 €

Money @bank, 1st jan 2008 : +453 €

Do you think we could survive if every PostgreSQLFr guy ask us to pay
their travel expenses?

No need to say Dalibo paid the posters this year, and other things the
last year, like Devrim's and Magnus' planes to come at SL 2007.

I'd like other companies to help PostgreSQLFr non-profit too !

------------------------------------------------------------------)

Just think about the marketing we will give to companies, and what will
be the benefits for them. I think they'd pay for it, no doubt.

-> We'll have to check companies' content about trainings!.. Without
this, how we will know if the company trains the people right ?
I know this will be really complicated to reach tough :/


My 2 cents.



PS:

1/ I ripped pgsql-general from the list of CC, I think this is more
about advocacy than general, and I'd like to avoid cross-postings in
PostgreSQL "official" lists

2/ I added Josuah's CERT list, as I think there may have some thread
with the points I enhance in this e-mail

3/ My e-mail will be

Jean-Paul Argudo <jean-paul@postgresqlfr.org>

Since this message, I ordered my e-mails accounts to have every
PostgreSQL-related e-mails sent/from jean-paul@postgresqlfr.org instead
of jean-paul@argudo.org, that will be used only for personal purpose
since then.

Please update my e-mail into your address books, thanks !

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

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Jean-Paul Argudo wrote:

> I think a company could be "Certified" when it hires a certain number of
> PostgreSQL "certified" individuals.
> All the point is determining how much...

If you just force the program to be open this issue largely resolves
itself.  Companies that want to advertise their certification should have
to list their certified members.  Leave it up to the buyer as to whether
they have enough of them, why should the certification authority be
needlessly complicated by worrying about this sort of thing?

The logical leap from there is to not certify companies except indirectly
via this mechanism, which solves the whole stack of logistics problems
that would otherwise come from trying to figure out just what a company
certification even means.  Saying "you can list certification for a
company only in the context of listing your certified workers" makes the
issue go away.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

JPA, Greg,

> The logical leap from there is to not certify companies except
> indirectly via this mechanism, which solves the whole stack of logistics
> problems that would otherwise come from trying to figure out just what a
> company certification even means.  Saying "you can list certification
> for a company only in the context of listing your certified workers"
> makes the issue go away.

I have to side with Greg here.  However, I also think that I should join
the certification mailing list and argue it out there.

--Josh

Greg Smith wrote:
> If you just force the program to be open this issue largely resolves
> itself.  Companies that want to advertise their certification should have
> to list their certified members.  Leave it up to the buyer as to whether
> they have enough of them, why should the certification authority be
> needlessly complicated by worrying about this sort of thing?

Most companies don't want to make their employee list public.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:28:24 -0800
Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> wrote:

> Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Id really prefer my company be certified by the community rather
> >> than by a company, despite the full respect I have in SRA's
> >> engagement in PostgreSQL and that we all know their contributions.
> > What would it mean for a company to be certified?
> I'd hope it'd mean that I can have some degree of confidence
> hiring that organization for Postgresql support.  No?
>
> It seems to have very similar benefits as certifying individuals.
>
> Microsoft seems to have something like that for their
> partners in their "Database Management competency"
> https://partner.microsoft.com/global/40012911
>

Guys, with respect this thread does nothing for us unless it is on the
certification list.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0,
> the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 01:14:23 +0100
Jean-Paul Argudo <jean-paul@postgresqlfr.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> What would it mean for a company to be certified?
>
> > I'd hope it'd mean that I can have some degree of confidence
> > hiring that organization for Postgresql support.  No?

I think we are having a terminology here. The term you are looking for,
at least in the US is Partner. RH does this, a certain partner level
can only be achieved if you have a specified number of RHCE's on staff.

>
> Thats my point. A "PostgreSQL Certified Company" is just about a
> brillant button on a company's web page, or a stamp on any commercial,
> "certifying" the company has knowledge in PostgreSQL and has prooved
> it has one.
>
> I think a company could be "Certified" when it hires a certain number
> of PostgreSQL "certified" individuals.

Yes this is a potential, to have qualified companies reach a status
within the community where they are recognized.

I believe that we need to take one step at a time. The priority
here is to build a certification for our community. Our community
primarily contains people, not companies. We certainly can address the
company if the community feels this is a good thing.

However, let's keep focus everything will evolve as it should.

Joshua D. Drake

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:05:52 -0700
Gregory Youngblood <greg@tcscs.com> wrote:

> How about providing a mechanism people can use to confirm a person's
> certification. Make that part of being certified.
>
> The company could advertise having people certified for postgresql,
> and their customers could check and verify that the person they are
> working with is certified. Perhaps, make a requirement for companies
> advertising in that manner to provide a link/button/etc. someplace on
> their site that links back to the confirmation site for postgresql
> people.

I think this is reasonable.

>
> Of course, if the list of certified people is open, then it could be
> up to the certified person to list his/her company information, and
> then the certification confirmation site could provide a search
> function. The button/link on a "certified" company might link back
> with a prebuilt search query to list their people.
>

Right.

Joshua D. Drake

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> Greg Smith wrote:
>> If you just force the program to be open this issue largely resolves
>> itself. �Companies that want to advertise their certification should have
>> to list their certified members.
>
> Most companies don't want to make their employee list public.

My first draft had "publically list" there and I backed it out for that
reason.  I was thinking they'd only tell the certifying organization, just
so they could confirm to nervous prospective customers "do they really
have x certified people there?" but not anything more than that.
Companies might not like telling even them, but seriously:  if Joshua and
friends really wants to know who you have working for you the community is
too small that you're going to be able to hide that for long anyway.

Enough from me on this, all replies should just go to the certification
list (which I'm not going to abuse anymore by sending to but not being a
member of) and this is at best a "certification V2.0" topic.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

> Guys, with respect this thread does nothing for us unless it is on the
> certification list.

Do we really need a separate mailing list for every thread? It's already kind
of crazy with dozens of lists, many of them moribund, which most people aren't
even aware exist.

I was going to suggest pruning the mailing lists down to just 3-4 already. The
last thing we need to be doing is creating new ones.

--
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!

On Feb 4, 2008 12:18 PM, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
> > Guys, with respect this thread does nothing for us unless it is on the
> > certification list.
>
> Do we really need a separate mailing list for every thread? It's already kind
> of crazy with dozens of lists, many of them moribund, which most people aren't
> even aware exist.

Even a new domain seems odd to me - if this is to be official, then
surely it should be under postgresql.org. Otherwise, whats to stop me
or anyone else starting a competing certification and claiming it's
just as valid? (other than the fact I don't have the time or energy!).

/D

Dave Page wrote:

> Even a new domain seems odd to me - if this is to be official, then
> surely it should be under postgresql.org.

+1

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

On Feb 4, 2008 4:27 AM, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:

> Even a new domain seems odd to me - if this is to be official, then
> surely it should be under postgresql.org.

Having a separate TLD actually increases the visibility of the effort
from a search engine perspective.

We can learn a lesson from Perl advocacy - it is still possible to
render projects invisible to the outside world through excessive
consolidation.  A search for "perl blogs" still does not put
use.perl.org in the top results.

-selena

--
Selena Deckelmann
PDXPUG - Portland PostgreSQL Users Group
http://pugs.postgresql.org/pdx
http://www.chesnok.com/daily

"Selena Deckelmann" <selenamarie@gmail.com> writes:

> On Feb 4, 2008 4:27 AM, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:
>
>> Even a new domain seems odd to me - if this is to be official, then
>> surely it should be under postgresql.org.
>
> Having a separate TLD actually increases the visibility of the effort
> from a search engine perspective.
>
> We can learn a lesson from Perl advocacy - it is still possible to
> render projects invisible to the outside world through excessive
> consolidation.  A search for "perl blogs" still does not put
> use.perl.org in the top results.

Firstly, if we could be a tenth as successful as Perl that would be great.

Secondly, the above has nothing to do with whether it's in a new domain or not
and everything to do with how often those blogs are linked to from the outside
world. I've never heard of them which tells you something about how heavily
referenced they are.

In any case search engine optimization is a mugs game. Concentrate on building
a service that people want to use and people will talk about it and that will
get you on the search engines. Search engines follow, they don't lead.

--
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning

how can we determine which companies are certified from the beginning?

From jan-paul:

>Thats my point. A "PostgreSQL Certified Company" is just about a
>brillant button on a company's web page, or a stamp on any commercial,
>"certifying" the company has knowledge in PostgreSQL and has prooved it
>has one.
>I think a company could be "Certified" when it hires a certain number of
>PostgreSQL "certified" individuals.

Its a great Idea...

>All the point is determining how much...
>2 Certified DBAs on a 5 consultants company can be enough.
>But 2 certified DBAs in a company of 100? 1000?
>Yes, it'll be hard to define something right.

We got a problem here... what happens when the company its really
small? in the case of Rotator Software... we're 4 techie guys... and 2
trainess... (We're in the olap world ;)) so guess how's the situation
there for us...

Yet... hiring postgresql certified people does not ensures a company
has the knowledge... since companies rotate its employees from time to
time... so we may either have the certified guys tell us where they
work, and by that give the button to the company.... or trust the
company?

>I was thinking also that only Certified PostgreSQL Training Companies
>could pretend to prepare trainees for PostgreSQL Certification.

I would suggest using PUGS for this.... but under the "academy" or so
shape... in this... grupove/vepug/Venezuelan PUG (the 5 guys that are
atm on it, and we're still in the process of creation) are giving free
talks and planning to give a fullday training season at some
university in march :D...


>The things I'd like this reflection to reach, on the "company
>certification", are:

>But I know many of you will think that we musn't mix certification with
>money at any time... I'm just telling you "heh, this could be a nice way
>to have money to the project", not that we *must* take it.

>My opinion is that if we only think about donations to "certify"
>companies, we will wait for them a long, long... long time.

>And sometimes, I'm a bit fed up of selling $5 mugs or $1 pins when I
<know I need $200 for a banner or that I like to give $150 to a guy going
>present PostgreSQL far from home, or even help guys at PG.De or PG.Uk :/

>I know you'll tell me I have to ask companies here to donate. We did,
>many times.

>They all tell the same: "What I have for the money?" I respond "well,
>you helps us a lot".... No need to say this is not what they wanna hear.

I agree with all your points here....

On Feb 4, 2008 3:20 PM, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres@cybertec.at> wrote:
> 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.

/D

On Monday 04 February 2008 09:52, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2008 4:27 AM, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:
> > Even a new domain seems odd to me - if this is to be official, then
> > surely it should be under postgresql.org.
>
> Having a separate TLD actually increases the visibility of the effort
> from a search engine perspective.
>
> We can learn a lesson from Perl advocacy - it is still possible to
> render projects invisible to the outside world through excessive
> consolidation.  A search for "perl blogs" still does not put
> use.perl.org in the top results.
>

hmm, i'd have thought you would have wanted planet.perl.org anyway (though
that doesn't show up either)

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:18:55 +0000
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
> > Guys, with respect this thread does nothing for us unless it is on
> > the certification list.
>
> Do we really need a separate mailing list for every thread? It's
> already kind of crazy with dozens of lists, many of them moribund,
> which most people aren't even aware exist.
>
> I was going to suggest pruning the mailing lists down to just 3-4
> already. The last thing we need to be doing is creating new ones.
>

I don't agree in the least, I was actually going to suggest we add a
new one for relational design questions. I like many lists that are
contextually specific. IMO, general should be removed for example.

Joshua D. Draek

--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit

On Feb 4, 2008 7:07 AM, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> "Selena Deckelmann" <selenamarie@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Feb 4, 2008 4:27 AM, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Even a new domain seems odd to me - if this is to be official, then
> >> surely it should be under postgresql.org.
> >
> > Having a separate TLD actually increases the visibility of the effort
> > from a search engine perspective.
> >
> > We can learn a lesson from Perl advocacy - it is still possible to
> > render projects invisible to the outside world through excessive
> > consolidation.  A search for "perl blogs" still does not put
> > use.perl.org in the top results.
>
> Firstly, if we could be a tenth as successful as Perl that would be great.

I agree!  :)

> Secondly, the above has nothing to do with whether it's in a new domain or not
> and everything to do with how often those blogs are linked to from the outside
> world. I've never heard of them which tells you something about how heavily
> referenced they are.

Ok, I think that I stated things to broadly. The search problem
doesn't affect people who are already in the know - it affects
everyone else.  I'm sure you're aware that a large number of
references doesn't necessarily mean that the information has any
quality.

Too much consolidation inhibits growth and probably discourages it.  I
was only trying to say that there's nothing wrong with having multiple
domains.  If we suddenly had 100 postgresql-related domains pop up
with interesting content, things would be messy for a bit but the
situation would work itself out.

And postgresql.org would still be there to guide the way through the mess.

> In any case search engine optimization is a mugs game. Concentrate on building
> a service that people want to use and people will talk about it and that will
> get you on the search engines. Search engines follow, they don't lead.

I agree except for that last bit.  Search is huge and relying only on
word-of-mouth is silly when we have plenty of people who know how to
optimize.

-selena

--
Selena Deckelmann
PDXPUG - Portland PostgreSQL Users Group
http://pugs.postgresql.org/pdx
http://www.chesnok.com/daily

On Feb 4, 2008 8:19 AM, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> On Monday 04 February 2008 09:52, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> > On Feb 4, 2008 4:27 AM, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:
> > > Even a new domain seems odd to me - if this is to be official, then
> > > surely it should be under postgresql.org.
> >
> > Having a separate TLD actually increases the visibility of the effort
> > from a search engine perspective.
> >
> > We can learn a lesson from Perl advocacy - it is still possible to
> > render projects invisible to the outside world through excessive
> > consolidation.  A search for "perl blogs" still does not put
> > use.perl.org in the top results.
> >
>
> hmm, i'd have thought you would have wanted planet.perl.org anyway (though
> that doesn't show up either)

Maybe. The use.perl.org blogs probably just need to be promoted a bit
more. For a long time, some of the admins refused to use the word
'blog' to describe any of the content. They used 'journal' instead,
and that really hurt the search. Search for 'perl journals' and you'll
see what i mean.

I realize this is getting a bit far afield of the main topic.

The relevance to -advocacy (for me) is that we should encourage some
experimentation, and the current growth in domains and lists is a
really good thing.

-selena

--
Selena Deckelmann
PDXPUG - Portland PostgreSQL Users Group
http://pugs.postgresql.org/pdx
http://www.chesnok.com/daily

> I agree except for that last bit.  Search is huge and relying only on
> word-of-mouth is silly when we have plenty of people who know how to
> optimize.

This is completely the wrong argument to be having.  Search engine issues
are important only *after* you have a certification exam and program.
Right now, you have a mailing list and presumably a trac archive, i.e.
nothing.  Search issues are at least a year away.

So the important thing at this stage is getting the maximum number of
useful community members to contribute to creating the certification.  Is
that better done on -advocacy or on a separate list?  Is there any reason
for a separate domain?

If I were organizing it, I'd create a separate list but on postgresql.org,
e.g. pgsql-certification@postgresql.org, to develop the certification, and
maybe a 3ld for the trac, like certification.postgresql.org.  That gives
the effort an instant "community" stamp.  It also limits the domain
proliferation problem which was one of the chief complaints about our
project 3 years ago before we rolled up the 6 domains what made up the
main postgresql.org.

It would also mean that the list archives are searchable together with all
the other postgresql.org list archives, an important point.

So, I'm in favor of a separate list, but think that having a separate
domain is a mistake.  The separate domain says "this is a Drake and Selena
effort and not a community effort" to those not involved.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 09:11:52 -0800
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

> So, I'm in favor of a separate list, but think that having a separate
> domain is a mistake.  The separate domain says "this is a Drake and
> Selena effort and not a community effort" to those not involved.

Selena isn't involved in the organization of this project, of course you
knew that as I already posted who the original members were.

There are several reasons that I didn't request a certification list
@postgresql.org, not at least of which is that I didn't want to waste
precious cycles on this very discussion.

I am more interested in garnering small but influential support via
known contributors on a pro-certification, pro-productivity list. These
are the people that are interested in actually helping getting the work
done. You have already admitted you are not one of those.

Please let us be productive now.

Joshua D. Drake

--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:15:03 +0100
Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres@cybertec.at> wrote:

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

Those same people should without incident be able to pass a
certification test.

Joshua D. Drake

--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit

Josh Berkus escribió:

> So, I'm in favor of a separate list, but think that having a separate
> domain is a mistake.  The separate domain says "this is a Drake and Selena
> effort and not a community effort" to those not involved.

Which is also what postgresqlconference.org and planetpostgresql.org
(etc) mean.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

On Feb 4, 2008 9:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Josh Berkus escribió:
>
> > So, I'm in favor of a separate list, but think that having a separate
> > domain is a mistake.  The separate domain says "this is a Drake and Selena
> > effort and not a community effort" to those not involved.
>
> Which is also what postgresqlconference.org and planetpostgresql.org
> (etc) mean.

I'm only involved with one of those :)

PUGS is under postgresql.org.

-selena

--
Selena Deckelmann
PDXPUG - Portland PostgreSQL Users Group
http://pugs.postgresql.org/pdx
http://www.chesnok.com/daily

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:15:03 +0100
Hans-Juergen Schoenig <postgres@cybertec.at> wrote:
 

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

Those same people should without incident be able to pass a
certification test.  

I disagree, I think that some of those people might have quite a hard time with a certification exam.  Any useful exam would *at least* cover some  PostgreSQL Administrators (perhaps a separate developer exam..), and such an exam would cover a wide range of subject matter, none of which is/was related to developing or fixing source code.  While we might have a developer that is great at writing a new optimization strategy, he probably won't take the time to focus on some more administrative tasks, like sequences, tablespaces, PITR - or other topics that aren't related to optimization.

Also, isn't this putting the cart before the horse?  I think for a certification program to succeed we first need to develop the delivery mechanism, question bank, and administrative mechanism.  Once a certification is designed and in place, we can then focus on the ancillary aspects.

I would think (from this discussion) that perhaps the first goal might be to determine the types of certifications to be offered (of there is to be more than one) and develop objectives - or at least what a "pass" of the exam should be demonstrative of.  I would recommend (at least to start) a "PostgreSQL Certified Administrator" exam...

IMHO, it will be difficult to assess who is qualified to deliver certification training - if at all possible.  All that can be done (at most) is to prevent courses from being listed on Postgresql.org (and even that might be difficult)...

-- 
Chander Ganesan
Open Technology Group, Inc.
One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
Morrisville, NC  27560
919-463-0999/877-258-8987
http://www.otg-nc.com

--- "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:18:55 +0000
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> >
> > I was going to suggest pruning the mailing lists down to just 3-4
> > already. The last thing we need to be doing is creating new ones.
> >
>
> I don't agree in the least, I was actually going to suggest we add
> a
> new one for relational design questions. I like many lists that are
> contextually specific. IMO, general should be removed for example.
>

I'd like to have many lists also.  There are so many messages in
general that I have a hard time keeping up.  I would like to be able
to just pick and choose those topics that interest me.  Having one
for design, one for PL programming, one for SQL, etc would be great.
Sign up for those that interest you and ignore the rest.

Just my .02.

Thanks,

LewisC



Lewis R Cunningham

An Expert's Guide to Oracle Technology
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/oracle/guide/

LewisC's Random Thoughts
http://lewiscsrandomthoughts.blogspot.com/

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:46:32 -0500
Chander Ganesan <chander@otg-nc.com> wrote:

> I disagree, I think that some of those people might have quite a hard
> time with a certification exam.  Any useful exam would *at least*

My point without trying to start a flamewar was:

To be certified you must pass the test. I don't care if you are Tom
Lane.

If we show any favoritism we lose credibility and we are not going to
do it.

>
> Also, isn't this putting the cart before the horse?  I think for a

Yes it certainly is.

> I would think (from this discussion) that perhaps the first goal
> might be to determine the types of certifications to be offered (of
> there is to be more than one) and develop objectives - or at least
> what a "pass" of the exam should be demonstrative of.  I would
> recommend (at least to start) a "PostgreSQL Certified Administrator"
> exam...

Right.

>
> IMHO, it will be difficult to assess who is qualified to deliver
> certification training - if at all possible.  All that can be done
> (at most) is to prevent courses from being listed on Postgresql.org
> (and even that might be difficult)...
>

We will not be able to certify training providers. That isn't the
intent of the project. The projects purpose is to develop the
certification.

As far as the website you know how that works in order to actually
doing something like that we would need actual complaints from actual
users.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit

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

On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 06:52:42AM -0800, Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> Having a separate TLD actually increases the visibility of the effort
> from a search engine perspective.

Having just come from the domain name industry, I can report that that's
only sort of true.  Did you "taste" this domain for traffic to prove it was
true in this case?

A

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:31:05 -0600
Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com> wrote:

> The sole argument I'd have against that, and I think it's a good
> one, is that just seeing the plethora of different topics moving
> through pgsql-general has been a key factor to exposing me to new
> topics as well as having already seen the solutions to issues well
> before I've encountered them.
>

Right, I believe that is a valid argument. I think the real
problem is that as a community we are not diligent in pushing people to
the contextually specific lists we already have.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit

How about providing a mechanism people can use to confirm a person's certification. Make that part of being certified.

The company could advertise having people certified for postgresql, and their customers could check and verify that the person they are working with is certified. Perhaps, make a requirement for companies advertising in that manner to provide a link/button/etc. someplace on their site that links back to the confirmation site for postgresql people.

Of course, if the list of certified people is open, then it could be up to the certified person to list his/her company information, and then the certification confirmation site could provide a search function. The button/link on a "certified" company might link back with a prebuilt search query to list their people.



On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 04:12 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Greg Smith wrote:
> If you just force the program to be open this issue largely resolves
> itself.  Companies that want to advertise their certification should have
> to list their certified members.  Leave it up to the buyer as to whether
> they have enough of them, why should the certification authority be
> needlessly complicated by worrying about this sort of thing?

Most companies don't want to make their employee list public.

On Mon, February 4, 2008 1:48 pm, Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
>>
>> My point without trying to start a flamewar was:
>>
>> To be certified you must pass the test. I don't care if you are Tom
>> Lane.
>>
>
>
> to take this posting seriously i have to assume that this is a joke ...
>

Any respectable certification must be subjective.  You don't look at the
person, think about it, and decide. There must be a subjective and
independent test.  To do otherwise greatly reduces the value of the
certification.

--
Dan Langille - http://www.langille.org/

DVL,

> Any respectable certification must be subjective.  You don't look at the
> person, think about it, and decide. There must be a subjective and
> independent test.  To do otherwise greatly reduces the value of the
> certification.

I think you mean "objective".

Anyway, this is all fairly academic until Josh & Co. have  at least one
certification exam at least halfway developed. At this point, I think
we've collected enough opinions on -advocacy; maybe we should let the exam
hackers do some work?

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

On Mon, February 4, 2008 2:11 pm, Josh Berkus wrote:
> DVL,
>
>> Any respectable certification must be subjective.  You don't look at the
>> person, think about it, and decide. There must be a subjective and
>> independent test.  To do otherwise greatly reduces the value of the
>> certification.
>
> I think you mean "objective".

Yes, I do.  Sorry.

> Anyway, this is all fairly academic until Josh & Co. have  at least one
> certification exam at least halfway developed. At this point, I think
> we've collected enough opinions on -advocacy; maybe we should let the exam
> hackers do some work?

Yes, please.  Those that what to work on this project should discuss it on
the cert list, not advocacy.  Thank you.

--
Dan Langille - http://www.langille.org/

On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 12:18 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>
> > Guys, with respect this thread does nothing for us unless it is on the
> > certification list.
>
> Do we really need a separate mailing list for every thread? It's already kind
> of crazy with dozens of lists, many of them moribund, which most people aren't
> even aware exist.
>
> I was going to suggest pruning the mailing lists down to just 3-4 already. The
> last thing we need to be doing is creating new ones.

+1

At least for me it's far easier to ignore threads I'm not interested in
than subscribe to yet another list. This particular subject
(certification) would be interesting for me as a potential end user, so
I'm not really qualified for any comment on the organization side of it,
but ultimately interested in the end result. I suspect many of the
postgres general list subscribers are in the same situation, so why not
let them know about how it evolves ?

Cheers,
Csaba.

On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 08:31 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:18:55 +0000
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

> > I was going to suggest pruning the mailing lists down to just 3-4
> > already. The last thing we need to be doing is creating new ones.
> >
>
> I don't agree in the least, I was actually going to suggest we add a
> new one for relational design questions. I like many lists that are
> contextually specific. IMO, general should be removed for example.

Why don't you go ahead and create those special lists and make general
collect all of them ? Some sort of hierarchy of lists... if doable at
all, that could make everybody happy...

Cheers,
Csaba.

On Feb 4, 2008, at 11:55 AM, Lewis Cunningham wrote:

>
> --- "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 12:18:55 +0000
>> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>>
>>> I was going to suggest pruning the mailing lists down to just 3-4
>>> already. The last thing we need to be doing is creating new ones.
>>>
>>
>> I don't agree in the least, I was actually going to suggest we add
>> a
>> new one for relational design questions. I like many lists that are
>> contextually specific. IMO, general should be removed for example.
>>
>
> I'd like to have many lists also.  There are so many messages in
> general that I have a hard time keeping up.  I would like to be able
> to just pick and choose those topics that interest me.  Having one
> for design, one for PL programming, one for SQL, etc would be great.
> Sign up for those that interest you and ignore the rest.

The sole argument I'd have against that, and I think it's a good one,
is that just seeing the plethora of different topics moving through
pgsql-general has been a key factor to exposing me to new topics as
well as having already seen the solutions to issues well before I've
encountered them.

Erik Jones

DBA | Emma®
erik@myemma.com
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)

Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:31:05 -0600
> Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com> wrote:
>
>> The sole argument I'd have against that, and I think it's a good
>> one, is that just seeing the plethora of different topics moving
>> through pgsql-general has been a key factor to exposing me to new
>> topics as well as having already seen the solutions to issues well
>> before I've encountered them.
>
> Right, I believe that is a valid argument. I think the real
> problem is that as a community we are not diligent in pushing people to
> the contextually specific lists we already have.

Well a) it usually would take more bandwidth to do that than it would save.
and b) I'm not sure what the point is since it's basically the same set of
people on all the lists. Also c) it sounds like you're agreeing with him and
then you're suggesting the polar opposite. The same argument holds for
-hackers at a higher level. Man issues, even those which are not technical
hacker issues, can be important for everyone to be aware of.

I think the only purpose having many lists is serving is to allow people to
act as "gatekeepers". In this case, "I only want to discuss it with a small
number of people who are more likely to agree with me".

I think we would be better served by the USENET model[*] of forking only when
experience shows it's necessary, rather than in anticipation of traffic which
may never materialize and may in fact not be of interest to all. I mean
seriously, do we really have 20 different groups of people involved here? (and
that's *not* counting the regional groups or the "inactive" lists.)

I would junk pgsql-sql, pgsql-ports, pgsql-performance, pgsql-novice and
redirect them all to pgsql-general and pgsql-docs, pgsql-interfaces, and
pgsql-bugs and send them all to -hackers.

I would also suggest junking pgsql-advocacy and pgsql-www as well. They're
mostly noise but they're noise we should be at least peripherally aware of and
not allow to slip under the radar because it happens in a corner where not
everyone is subscribed. That's what happened recently on another topic and it
seems to be what's happening now with this certification stuff.

By all means, involve only the people you want but you should have to conduct
yourselves out in the open where others have a chance to speak up and shout
stop if you're doing something on their behalf that they don't like.

[*] "New newsgroups are formed not on The Field Of Dreams theory- "if you
    build it, they will come"- but on the Brooklyn Dodgers theory- "dammit,
    there's too many teams in this city: someone move out!"--Charles Seaton

--
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning

Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com> writes:
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 11:55 AM, Lewis Cunningham wrote:
>> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
>>> I don't agree in the least, I was actually going to suggest we add a
>>> new one for relational design questions. I like many lists that are
>>> contextually specific. IMO, general should be removed for example.
>>
>> I'd like to have many lists also.  There are so many messages in
>> general that I have a hard time keeping up.  I would like to be able
>> to just pick and choose those topics that interest me.  Having one
>> for design, one for PL programming, one for SQL, etc would be great.
>> Sign up for those that interest you and ignore the rest.

> The sole argument I'd have against that, and I think it's a good one,
> is that just seeing the plethora of different topics moving through
> pgsql-general has been a key factor to exposing me to new topics as
> well as having already seen the solutions to issues well before I've
> encountered them.

Whether you like narrow lists or not, removing -general would certainly
be complete folly.  There's always a need for an "other" list.  If you
try to get away without it, you'll just end up with off-topic questions
being asked on some random one of the narrow-topic lists.

            regards, tom lane

On Mon, February 4, 2008 2:48 pm, Gregory Stark wrote:

> [*] "New newsgroups are formed not on The Field Of Dreams theory- "if you
>     build it, they will come"- but on the Brooklyn Dodgers theory-
> "dammit,
>     there's too many teams in this city: someone move out!"--Charles
> Seaton

It appears that we agree on the theory.  We differ on the measurement.

From experience, it is best to do the certification on a distinct list.

The PostgreSQL project is not immune to the "too many cooks" problem.  It
has an abundance of people willing to contribute.  But unfortunately, most
of them are only willing to contribute their opinions when what is lacking
is heavy lifting.

--
Dan Langille - http://www.langille.org/

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:48:16 +0000
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

> > Right, I believe that is a valid argument. I think the real
> > problem is that as a community we are not diligent in pushing
> > people to the contextually specific lists we already have.

> I would junk pgsql-sql, pgsql-ports, pgsql-performance, pgsql-novice
> and redirect them all to pgsql-general and pgsql-docs,
> pgsql-interfaces, and pgsql-bugs and send them all to -hackers.

I could see ports going to hackers but bugs should be a bug tracker
that copies hackers or bugs.

I could see eliminating -sql, -novice and -interfaces.

-performance is a little bit tougher because it may be a -hacker issue
or an -admin issue.

Docs should absolutely be separate in order to keep the noise level
down.


> I would also suggest junking pgsql-advocacy and pgsql-www as well.
> They're mostly noise but they're noise we should be at least

Sorry but that isn't going to happen and pgsql-www is nowhere near just
noise. It is vital to the operation of the infrastructure.

> peripherally aware of and not allow to slip under the radar because
> it happens in a corner where not everyone is subscribed. That's what
> happened recently on another topic and it seems to be what's
> happening now with this certification stuff.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit

Everyone,

> > I would junk pgsql-sql, pgsql-ports, pgsql-performance, pgsql-novice
> > and redirect them all to pgsql-general and pgsql-docs,
> > pgsql-interfaces, and pgsql-bugs and send them all to -hackers.

Speaking of keeping discussions on topic: this discussion is taking off in
a tangent at this point, and it's on two lists.  So can we either get it
back to constructive work, or kill it off, please?

While *some* people on these lists have the mail software to filter
100messages/day, there are other subscribers who are driven away by
excessive volume.  So please do your part to keep the lists accessable to
everyone.  Thanks!

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

> On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:48:16 +0000
>
> -performance is a little bit tougher because it may be a -hacker issue
> or an -admin issue.

In my experience it is really a carbon copy of -general. I wasn't even aware
of -admin before. Is it just "administrating postgres"? How is that different
from pgsql-general?

> Docs should absolutely be separate in order to keep the noise level
> down.

See this is the problem. Who is going to work on docs if not people
documenting the stuff they're writing? So everyone on -hackers ends up
subscribed to -docs as well anyways. And -bugs. You're creating them "to keep
the noise level down" but they don't keep the noise level down at all.

>> I would also suggest junking pgsql-advocacy and pgsql-www as well.
>> They're mostly noise but they're noise we should be at least
>
> Sorry but that isn't going to happen and pgsql-www is nowhere near just
> noise. It is vital to the operation of the infrastructure.

Sure it's vital that there be on-list discussions. But they should be in the
open, not in a quiet corner where others might miss them.

To put it simply I think we really only need two public lists:

pgsql-hackers
pgsql-users

There really aren't any other groups of people. "people who want to talk about
x" isn't a separate group and they shouldn't go off and talk about x without
the others. People who don't want to talk about x are still interested in
knowing that someone is talking about it and should still see that the
discussion is happening even if they don't follow it in detail.

--
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com
  Ask me about EnterpriseDB's 24x7 Postgres support!

--- Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:

>
> pgsql-hackers
> pgsql-users
>
> There really aren't any other groups of people. "people who want to
> talk about

There are hackers (contribute to PostgreSQL), DBAs (administer the
database), Developers (write application to interact with the
database) and users (use a tool like pgAdmin to query the database)?

When talking about coders, there are pl/pgSQL, PL/xxx, SQL, external
langauges.  I think there are many groups.

If a person is interested in all the groups, is it hard to subscribe?
 No.

If all groups are in one, is it hard to filter out?  Yes.

LewisC



Lewis R Cunningham

An Expert's Guide to Oracle Technology
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/oracle/guide/

LewisC's Random Thoughts
http://lewiscsrandomthoughts.blogspot.com/

Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
> If we want to make sure that this certificate is worth anything, we have
> to make sure that people who are allowed to issue it are more than just
> "a little postgres".
> otherwise we end up with a nightmare - 50000000000 people will issue
> worthless certificates.
> if every stupid guy wearing a tie is allowed to issue this, it is
> worthless ...

The opposite extreme is bad too.  I've seen companies pick Visual Basic
because it's easier to hire certified VB6 developers than python/C/etc.

FWIW, some Sun database product has about a thousand or two certified
people http://www.mysql.com/certification/candidates.php ; as well
as having expensive books to study for it
http://www.mysql.com/certification/studyguides/

IMHO their certification tests seem to have a reasonable degree of
detail.

Lewis Cunningham <lewisc@rocketmail.com> writes:
> If a person is interested in all the groups, is it hard to subscribe?
>  No.
> If all groups are in one, is it hard to filter out?  Yes.

Some people like to filter PG mail into different folders for different
lists, so that they can read with more focus.  That would get
significantly harder if we merged the lists into just a couple.  On the
other hand, if you see the lists as one big discussion, you can have
them all arrive in one folder (and set your subscription to filter dups
from cross-posted messages).  I happen to fall in the latter camp but
I don't want to make life hard for the former camp, especially not
when it wouldn't really buy anything for me.

I agree with the original complaint about not creating new lists without
significant evidence that one is needed, but that doesn't translate into
wanting to smash everything down to a couple of lists.

            regards, tom lane

Hans-Juergen Schoenig wrote:
>
...
> you are absolutely true ...
> 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 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.
> 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.

Well, I think knowing how something works and actually able to tell
somebody about it so he understands are different matters.

While top visible committers and drivers for the postgres developement
are of course in a situation to review the material, some other
process should be established to actually develop the certification
course.

This is more similar to the documentation of postgres and the
contributors to that could be first address for getting good
certification questions. Having some skills in teaching would
also not hurt.

Just my 2e-9 ct.

Tino

Hans-Juergen Schoenig a écrit :
>>
>
>> 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.
>
> Somebody who issues a certificate has to be know more than just the
> syntax of pg_dump.

Who did say the opposite ?

> If we want to make sure that this certificate is worth anything, we have
> to make sure that people who are allowed to issue it are more than just
> "a little postgres".

We surely want certification to be a proof of a good knowledge. That
does not mean people will have to know the code in every single line.

That is what certification is suppose to verify. You certify what you
put in the certification.

But if you think we can't take the risk to give that certification to a
guy that doesn't deserve it, maybe we should think about a certification
that is something like "a core hacker will work with you for 6 months as
it is the only way to be sure you won't ever tell something that could
hurt the good feeling people have about PostgreSQL."

> otherwise we end up with a nightmare - 50000000000 people will issue
> worthless certificates.

I wondr how many centuries we'll have to wait to have 1% of that number
intersted in PostgreSQL :-)

> if every stupid guy wearing a tie is allowed to issue this, it is
> worthless ...

I'm wondering if wearing a tie and having passed SRA certification means
I'm a stupid guy?

>> 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.
>
>
> this is exactly my point.
> how many companies do you know who are really good at postgres?

Who can say who's good, by now ?

> personally i am really fed up of "self announced postgres" people.

Is there another way of proving it ?

> i am fixing problems caused by those people day after day.

We all do ne day or the other. I'm sorry, I had never coded a single
line in PostgreSQL. Does that make me a liar when I say I have some
knowledge in PostgreSQL ?

> if we decide to introduce a certificate we have to make sure that it is
> really professional.

Sure.

> to me doing some advocacy posting is just not enough to certify.
> more deep knowledge is required.

Sure.

> somebody who has been in professional postgresql business has written at
> least one piece of useful code which has been released to the public -
> so it is no big deal.

Too restricting.

> i just want to avoid that every guy who is able to type pg_dump can do
> the job ...

That is not so bad to already know how to use pg_dump, after all.

>> A PostgreSQL certification relates your knowledge in managing PostgreSQL
>> databases, not how PostgreSQL is coded.
>
>
> i am not talking about the guy who gets certified.

I thought you were.

> i am referring to the people who are allowed to issue certificates.


That is another aspect of the question.

First one is :

- What do we put in ?

Second one is :

- Who will write the certification questions. And wo will verify the
answer ?

I'm afraid that it has to be a little more automatic. And then, an MCQ
form is some good way of proceeding.

> if you know how PG works inside - then you are qualified to certify
> other people.
> if you don't have detailed knowledge about internal algorithms, you are
> just not qualified to certify other people.
>
> postgres is the database of professionals ...
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>
> you got me wrong. i am just telling that we need strict guidelines and
> strict tests.
> otherwise it is worthless ...

We all agree. So the questions ramaining are :
- what should be in the certification program
- is an MCQ significant enough ?
- are there people willing to watch every attendee answers or is
possible to have an automatic processing of answers ?
- who will decide who's smart enough to write questions and test ?



Regards,
--
Stéphane SCHILDKNECHT
Président de PostgreSQLFr
Tél. 09 53 69 97 12
http://www.postgresqlfr.org

I have seriously trimmed the To/CC fields and remove cert@

Please stop cross posting between the lists.

Stéphane A. Schildknecht wrote:

> We all agree. So the questions ramaining are :
> - what should be in the certification program
> - is an MCQ significant enough ?
> - are there people willing to watch every attendee answers or is
> possible to have an automatic processing of answers ?
> - who will decide who's smart enough to write questions and test ?

I think this answers your questions:

http://lists.postgresqlcertification.org/pipermail/cert/2008-February/000067.html

Further discussion should be directed to the cert list, as previously
suggested.

--
Dan Langille - http://www.langille.org/
BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference: http://www.bsdcan.org/
PGCon  - The PostgreSQL Conference:    http://www.pgcon.org/

Em Monday 04 February 2008 14:38:31 Csaba Nagy escreveu:

> Why don't you go ahead and create those special lists and make general
> collect all of them ? Some sort of hierarchy of lists... if doable at
> all, that could make everybody happy...

That's an excellent idea.


--
Jorge Godoy      <jgodoy@gmail.com>