On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Ian Lynch <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 27 April 2012 18:34, Robert Ryley <email@example.com> wrote:
Just because people do irrational things, does not mean they *should.*
Depends on the purpose. What is irrational to A is perfectly sensible to B.
Outcome is what matters.
Which is precisely why the TDF is *not competent* to certify anybody.
Support those that develop code and docs, market the code and docs,
help other entities make money developing the code (while capturing
some share of those profits), but stay out of the "assessment"
The whole certification issue is caused by people without
technical knowledge passing judgement on things they do not know
about. Again, who certifies the certifiers, and at what point does it
Ok, so abolish all the universties, government regulators etc.
So you see yourself as a sovereign ruler, don't you? You simply can't
be content to put out a product that people are willing to pay for?
Precisely the bureaucratic mindset I am railing against! Who are
*you* to bestow the label of "competent" on someone when you are not
paying them? Justify your own compentence to make these judgements,
just like a diagnostic test manufacturer must demonstrate the validity
of a particular procedure for classifying those with illness X, and
Besides, there are other reasons for certification than simple quality assurance.
Governments like to know public money is spent on training leading to some
clear outcome, people like to have official recognition. If there is market
demand there is no reason not to provide.
I do not want to turn this into a political discussion. Suffice it to
say, I do not see any need to deal with government entities in my own
business dealings unless they are imposed upon me. Government
agencies and employees are not my clients, if I can help it. Been
there, done that, won't do it again. Let some third party ecosystem
sprout up and handle government needs. That is outside the scope of
the LO project, which is the code and documentation.
computable functions that are specified. These proofs can then be
checked with a proof checker, which is just another program.
Sounds like a logical argument for something that is at least in part an
Not in the realm of theoretical computer science/mathematical logic.
This is a valid question that goes back to the Greek
Skeptics, and has had a major influence on logic, mathematics, and philosphy.
" Though the rationale for certification is always societal good, the
real objective is different: seizure of power. Certification is not
something we implement for the benefit of the society but for the
benefit of the certifiers.
To an extent that is true. Why not provide a service that people are
prepared to pay for as a means of funding FLOSS? Better than paying for
licenses - don't forget the USA is not the world and there are many
different ways certification is used.
From a marketing POV, it is a poor strategy for developers and
associated businesses to accept. It is *not* good business to compete
on price! Certification does *not* have predictive validity of who
will or will not make a good developer, or who can
elicit needs from clients and translate them into working software
that makes people happy. It does allow unskilled people to *feel*
competent at making decisions that they have no learning or experience
Seems to me you are complaining more about the way the certification is
being implemented since end user certification has a lot different
functions to those you are criticising. Here in the UK the government pays
providers to put on training courses. How do they know those providers
actually run the courses and with reasonable quality?
That is not *my* problem. That is the problem of the vendor of the
courses. It is arguably outside the scope of the LO project.
Those who want a certification course should *pay* the TDF, and
associated experts to develop one. The cost of this project should be
born by business and government, not the underemployed masses
struggling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads, or
the code contributors.
This is just another sneaky way for business to offload the cost of
hiring and training onto the workers themselves, for no benefit.
They require them to result in qualifications for the users of the courses and use independent
Awarding Organisations to do that. Unfortunately if all those
qualifications are targeted on MSO all the training is geared to MSO.
The key is not to commodify your offering because some bureaucrat says
so. The key is to educate those buyers who are amenable to education
on the value that LO provides over MSO.
the strategy of certificating end users is multi-faceted. It earns revenue
while shifting the training dynamic with a clear marketing effect. But as I
said before, its nothing to do with certifying companies or techs, its
about qualifications for IT users which is a completely different and
potentially much bigger market.
"Certification" is the heroin of the computing industry -- highly
addictive, but not good for you, or your pricing power. Please read
that link by Alan Weiss I referred to earlier.
License My dog, but not Me
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Article on Datamation website: "How Microsoft Office Tops LibreOffice: 11 Features" · Italo Vignoli
Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Article on Datamation website: "How Microsoft Office Tops LibreOffice: 11 Features" · webmaster-Kracked_P_P
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy