March 30, 2010 at 1:38 am
Gift Peddie (3/29/2010)
The Napolitano is warm and friendly, the Vienezano is cultured and reserved and the Milanese is snooty and aloof.
Have you ever been to Italy, Gift? If so, I suppose you didn't pay much attention to what you had around.
I live in Conegliano, 50 Km from Venice, and I don't think that Venicians are "cultured and reserved", nor can confirm any other of your prejudices. Neapolitans are just people who live in Naples, as far as I know. The same applies to Venicians and Milanesi.
The place where one lives doesn't say much about him/her, like gender or colour of the skin.
For the record, in Venice we speak "Veneziano", in Naples they speak "Napoletano" and in Milan they speak "Milanese". And, yes, we don't understand each other. Italy has been divided for centuries, with regions under different dominations (Spanish, Austrian, French and so on). Our dialects are witnesses of our history and still reflect the influence of the language of the rulers.
-- Gianluca Sartori
March 30, 2010 at 2:55 am
WayneS (3/29/2010)
dma-669038 (3/29/2010)
...found ... to be an MVP whose title was revoked in 2007.Okay, I did a little bit of a search to find lists of revoked MVPs. Where do you find such a list?
You won't. It's not something MS can release. They can't even release the names of current MVPs without the individual's permissions. Sometimes people will say in their forum sigs something like 'SQL MVP 2008-2009' or they'll mention it in a thread somewhere.
There's a difference between revoked (thrown out of the program for violation of rules) and not renewed. Gift, iirc, is the latter. Simply not renewed. Nothing wrong with that.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
March 30, 2010 at 5:57 am
GilaMonster (3/30/2010)
WayneS (3/29/2010)
dma-669038 (3/29/2010)
...found ... to be an MVP whose title was revoked in 2007.Okay, I did a little bit of a search to find lists of revoked MVPs. Where do you find such a list?
You won't. It's not something MS can release. They can't even release the names of current MVPs without the individual's permissions. Sometimes people will say in their forum sigs something like 'SQL MVP 2008-2009' or they'll mention it in a thread somewhere.
There's a difference between revoked (thrown out of the program for violation of rules) and not renewed. Gift, iirc, is the latter. Simply not renewed. Nothing wrong with that.
Sorry for the typo, i meant not renewed. Lot of people get pretty disillusioned after this so we were thinking she may be too. We may be completely wrong again.
March 30, 2010 at 6:01 am
Lynn Pettis (3/29/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (3/29/2010)
Lynn Pettis (3/29/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (3/29/2010)
I am willing to remove the time in service from the board. I don't think I would remove the MCITP from the board. I think this pre-req is a representation of the stepping stone certification that the MCJ would represent.I don't think I could remove the panel review either. I think that would be an essential piece of the puzzle.
Think of the review as having Brent, Jeff, Gail and Paul doing your review. If they signed off on your abilities for the MCJ, I personally think that would be representative enough for the certification. That however should make little bearing in the interview process - just the same as any other cert or degree. If I were your peer and knew that those people approved of your skills along with your exam, then I could give credence to you being an MCJ - you earned it at that point. I think very few people could game a review process when those types of people are performing the review.
Restricting the panel to just 4 specific individuals, however, could make getting the cert more difficult. As Grant indicated, this one should be attainable internationally without having to travel to a specific location. Trying to coordinate a review board of those four individuals could be problematic.
I like the idea of the peer review, but I think this one needs to be looked at in greater detail as to how it could be achieved. I think I'd have to go back through the posts to see what ideas had been floated on that, as I think one of them was to use the User Groups as part of the process. I also believe there was mention of video conferencing as well.
Four per review panel - but the review panel would have to be much bigger than those 4. They were just for the example.
How do we determine gets to be on the review panels? Are the panels made up of volunteers or are they paid? Tough questions that need to be considered.
The obvious, but inherently wrong, answer would be MCM's of course. But when you check the list of MCM's you'll find that there are only a small handful that are not Microsoft employees, so that's a non-starter. I guess it would be up to the governing body to make that determination. But, since this goes way beyond volunteering for PASS, it would probably have to be a paid position. Heck, I volunteer for the job, right now, because, thinking about, it would almost have to be people that presented and taught at user groups, wrote books & white papers, and then did this full time. In other words, paid MVP's. Sign me up!
----------------------------------------------------The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood... Theodore RooseveltThe Scary DBAAuthor of: SQL Server 2017 Query Performance Tuning, 5th Edition and SQL Server Execution Plans, 3rd EditionProduct Evangelist for Red Gate Software
March 30, 2010 at 6:04 am
CirquedeSQLeil (3/29/2010)
Tough call. I was thinking volunteers because it could be more important to them in that fashion. However, their time is extremely important. Thus maybe they volunteer and then get recompense in some fashion (a bonus for each review that would be undisclosed).
Having done a ton of work on volunteer projects, in & out of the community, a volunteer only system would fail. You need to have time commitments from people in order to turn around the certifications as they come in within a reasonable period of time. Volunteer, or even paid ad hoc consulting, couldn't sustain the workload. Although, it might be the way to get the project off the ground.
----------------------------------------------------The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood... Theodore RooseveltThe Scary DBAAuthor of: SQL Server 2017 Query Performance Tuning, 5th Edition and SQL Server Execution Plans, 3rd EditionProduct Evangelist for Red Gate Software
March 30, 2010 at 6:08 am
Lynn Pettis (3/29/2010)
dma-669038 (3/29/2010)
Has anyone looked at the requirements and process behind Oracle Certified Masters (OCM)? Again i dont know if there are any controversies behind this cert just bringing this up as an example.The requirements say
Recommended Minimum Skills and Experience
3-4 years of professional enterprise-level Oracle experience
Extensive experience with backup, restore and recovery operations
Proficient with SQL
The program costs about 9K, two labs and two exams and of course previous certs are a pre requisite. There aren't that many people who do it and pass it although no idea of pass percentages and so on. But atleast looks doable compared to MCM.
Oracle OCM is accessible internationally as far as i know, although i dont know if costs vary from country to country, they probably do as well. I dont know how the measure the 'recommended' experience or even if they do.
The time in service and the cost put this beyond what we are looking at for the MCJ. One pat of this is for it to be accessable internationally. The costs and lab requirements may be too much for this.
March 30, 2010 at 6:08 am
Jack Corbett (3/29/2010)
Okay, I had unsubscribed to this thread, but I got sucked back in. I have to admit that I have not read all the suggestions I had missed.I think that there have been some good thoughts presented around some type of certification between the MCITP and MCM. Here are a some of my thoughts:
1. If this is designed to be a bridge between MCITP and MCM then MCITP should be required to get it.
I think conceptually this is a bridge between MCITP and MCM, but I don't think that practically it has to be. We can position it as something better than MCITP but not as tasty awesome as MCM without requiring Microsoft certifications at all. That assumes the governing board is not Microsoft. If it is MS, then of course they'll require MCITP as they do now for MCM.
And yeah, good point about bringing it up to the PASS board.
----------------------------------------------------The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood... Theodore RooseveltThe Scary DBAAuthor of: SQL Server 2017 Query Performance Tuning, 5th Edition and SQL Server Execution Plans, 3rd EditionProduct Evangelist for Red Gate Software
March 30, 2010 at 6:13 am
Lynn Pettis (3/29/2010)
Here is what I think, before presenting anything to the PASS board, we really need to flesh things out more and put it in a more coherent format than a forum thread.
Perhaps some of us on this thread could become a core group and volunteer with PASS to make it more of a reality. I think this is a ways off (but not too long, or we may lose initiative and to be honest some of what has transpired on this thread has made it difficult to continue at times; almost a lesson in futility), but quite doable. By spending time now we will hopefully demonstrate to PASS the willingness to pursue this further and try to make it work. I would also hope that the many PASS users groups would also get behind the idea as well, as I can see them being necessary to its success as well.
I do believe that it is quite possible for the SQL Server community to help build the MCJ into a viable certification between MCITP and MCM.
See, I think just the opposite. PASS priorities are set by the board and implemented by the limited resources at PASS HQ and volunteers. If the community believes, and I'm not sure the majority of the active community does, that there is a need a for another level of certification, then the sooner the idea is put forward to board members the better. Right now, I see the priorities of the board being better communication and transparency, understanding what they have in SQLSaturday, and providing more/better resources for chapters. I don't disagree with those priorities, but to get certification on the list it needs to be brought up early and often, in my opinion.
I think it is doable also, but it will take lots of time and resources, and from experience, neither of those come in abundance in volunteer staffed organizations. You need a project champion who is willing to sell it to the board and run with it. That would mean organizing resources, recruiting and managing volunteers, possibly developing web site/page. I would easily put something like this on the scale of or bigger than what Steve, Andy, and Brian did with SQLSaturday, as far as time, manpower, and effort go.
I think it's a good idea, but who is willing to step up and take it from forum discussion to actual planning and implementation?
I sense a blog post coming from this (don't anyone steal it).
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
March 30, 2010 at 6:17 am
Gift Peddie (3/29/2010)
dma-669038 (3/29/2010)
Lynn and me saw this yesterday also found her to be an MVP whose title was revoked in 2007. I guess the conversation had to reach a climax somewhere for her to leave and in a way am glad it did.Just fyi, gift lady, if you are listening - I am a 'colored' woman and have been talking here loud and clear for a while now. My first job was at an all woman run IT training company where i taught people to be certified on Visual Basic. I also run a PASS Chapter for 7 years now. I have had women, colored, white all kinds speak at my chapter, worked for me and I've worked for them. You probably ran into some bias somewhere and I don't deny for a minute that it exists. But to come into a forum and accuse people randomly of all this without even having the courtesy to introduce yourself is rude and disgusting. I hope at some point you will reconsider some self examination and/or getting some help for facing the world in a better way. The fact that you are still in this country perhaps proves something is right about what we do, that includes how we treat people like you. Thanks.
Please post your MCITP number so I will know you are qualified to participate in an academic discussion about post MCITP credential. The reason is when I registered for my MCDBA upgrade exam the system checks to make sure I had MCDBA and I have passed 70-431. So please post your MCITP DBA number so we can continue.
Nice failure on the Turing Test there.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 30, 2010 at 6:18 am
If you want to take it to the PASS board, have a chat first with Kevin Kline (I know he's not on the board any longer). He was involved last time a certification was discussed, and he can give you a summary of what happened, what were the problems, stumbling blocks, concerns, etc.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
March 30, 2010 at 6:19 am
Jack Corbett (3/30/2010)
Lynn Pettis (3/29/2010)
Here is what I think, before presenting anything to the PASS board, we really need to flesh things out more and put it in a more coherent format than a forum thread.
Perhaps some of us on this thread could become a core group and volunteer with PASS to make it more of a reality. I think this is a ways off (but not too long, or we may lose initiative and to be honest some of what has transpired on this thread has made it difficult to continue at times; almost a lesson in futility), but quite doable. By spending time now we will hopefully demonstrate to PASS the willingness to pursue this further and try to make it work. I would also hope that the many PASS users groups would also get behind the idea as well, as I can see them being necessary to its success as well.
I do believe that it is quite possible for the SQL Server community to help build the MCJ into a viable certification between MCITP and MCM.
See, I think just the opposite. PASS priorities are set by the board and implemented by the limited resources at PASS HQ and volunteers. If the community believes, and I'm not sure the majority of the active community does, that there is a need a for another level of certification, then the sooner the idea is put forward to board members the better. Right now, I see the priorities of the board being better communication and transparency, understanding what they have in SQLSaturday, and providing more/better resources for chapters. I don't disagree with those priorities, but to get certification on the list it needs to be brought up early and often, in my opinion.
I think it is doable also, but it will take lots of time and resources, and from experience, neither of those come in abundance in volunteer staffed organizations. You need a project champion who is willing to sell it to the board and run with it. That would mean organizing resources, recruiting and managing volunteers, possibly developing web site/page. I would easily put something like this on the scale of or bigger than what Steve, Andy, and Brian did with SQLSaturday, as far as time, manpower, and effort go.
I think it's a good idea, but who is willing to step up and take it from forum discussion to actual planning and implementation?
I sense a blog post coming from this (don't anyone steal it).
There have been multiple discussions within the PASS organization and volunteer groups to set up some type of certification board. I think at one point there was even a committee working on it.
But I like your priorities better. More support for the community as expressed in SQL Saturday and the chapters should be priority one with transparency just built into the process.
Still, the idea of an advanced, and possibly independent, certification is pretty intriguing.
----------------------------------------------------The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood... Theodore RooseveltThe Scary DBAAuthor of: SQL Server 2017 Query Performance Tuning, 5th Edition and SQL Server Execution Plans, 3rd EditionProduct Evangelist for Red Gate Software
March 30, 2010 at 6:34 am
Jack Corbett (3/30/2010)
Lynn Pettis (3/29/2010)
Here is what I think, before presenting anything to the PASS board, we really need to flesh things out more and put it in a more coherent format than a forum thread.
Perhaps some of us on this thread could become a core group and volunteer with PASS to make it more of a reality. I think this is a ways off (but not too long, or we may lose initiative and to be honest some of what has transpired on this thread has made it difficult to continue at times; almost a lesson in futility), but quite doable. By spending time now we will hopefully demonstrate to PASS the willingness to pursue this further and try to make it work. I would also hope that the many PASS users groups would also get behind the idea as well, as I can see them being necessary to its success as well.
I do believe that it is quite possible for the SQL Server community to help build the MCJ into a viable certification between MCITP and MCM.
See, I think just the opposite. PASS priorities are set by the board and implemented by the limited resources at PASS HQ and volunteers. If the community believes, and I'm not sure the majority of the active community does, that there is a need a for another level of certification, then the sooner the idea is put forward to board members the better. Right now, I see the priorities of the board being better communication and transparency, understanding what they have in SQLSaturday, and providing more/better resources for chapters. I don't disagree with those priorities, but to get certification on the list it needs to be brought up early and often, in my opinion.
I think it is doable also, but it will take lots of time and resources, and from experience, neither of those come in abundance in volunteer staffed organizations. You need a project champion who is willing to sell it to the board and run with it. That would mean organizing resources, recruiting and managing volunteers, possibly developing web site/page. I would easily put something like this on the scale of or bigger than what Steve, Andy, and Brian did with SQLSaturday, as far as time, manpower, and effort go.
I think it's a good idea, but who is willing to step up and take it from forum discussion to actual planning and implementation?
I sense a blog post coming from this (don't anyone steal it).
Hey, I was thinking possible blog post too, but go ahead.
Something you just mentioned could be used to help this along, SQLSaturday. These venues could also be used to host sessions for certification purposes, as well as serving as venues for recertification as well (presenting/attending).
I still stand by getting things a bit more fleshed out before going to the PASS board. Reason being you have to able to answer some tough questions about how the program might work. We haven't gotten that far, all we have right now are some ideas, both good and not so good, that need to be formalized some what and discussed.
Hopefully I can go back through this thread and do some of that over the next couple of days.
March 30, 2010 at 6:50 am
Jeff Moden (3/29/2010)
Lynn Pettis (3/29/2010)
We would be interested in hearing your suggestons to address those concerns. To be honest, I think we are trying to put together something that fits between MCITP and MCM and would represent something that truely indicates that the bearer has reasonable knowledge and experience with MS SQL Server.That's kind of the point that I've been trying to make without coming right out and saying it. Would you say that a person who is the "bearer" of a PHD in Mathematics "has a reasonable knowledge and experience" with Mathematics? If so, would you consider a simple number conversion like I asked that one fellow to be "reasonable knowledge"? I can guarantee that a PHD went through many "peer reviews".
There will always be accolades that have the supposed promise that the bearer of such an accolade has a "reasonable knowledge" of some given area. As honorable as the intentions are behind the proposed accolade of MCJ, it will be no more of a guarantee of actual knowledge than the current certs are or that of a PHD in Mathematics even with peer reviews. There is a way to beat every system and every poser, liar, and ring-knocker in the world knows how to do it.
Jeff, while I agree with much of what your stating, I think you may be looking at this backwards, to an extent.
There is no way short of hiring someone and putting them to work, to fully verify that someone knows the skills they are claiming. None that's realistic, anyway.
You've seen plenty of people who could claim all kinds of expertise, but who couldn't answer simple basics in an interview. I'm sure you've experienced the people who make it through the whole hiring process, go to work, and promptly prove that they are competent only at getting themselves hired. I know I sure have!
Even the idea of "renting someone to do the tech interview" is really just another type of peer review. And subject to gaming and falsification. How can a manager tell if the person he's asking to do the tech interview even knows how to do that?
Thus, the purpose of any of this is not to make a perfect system, but to make one that's better than the current system. It's just an iterative improvement over currently available validations.
That's one of the reasons that I think looking to the old apprentice, journeyman, master path. If, instead of just "peer review" by a semi-anonymous body of so-called-professionals, you had to go on public record as saying that, "Gus is a competent DBA who can handle the basic day-to-day duties of the job", and your name would be permanently tied to that, the process could become much more rigorously defendable.
That's exactly what a master of a craft used to do when he sent someone out to be a journeyman. He was putting his own rep on the line. Any "master" who turned out an above average number of incompetents, would quickly lose his reputation, and, depending on the guild, could even lose the right to train people at all.
All current systems of professional certification that I know of are based on the idea of examination, not on the idea of anyone's reputation being at stake. The closest we get to that kind of concept, so far as I'm aware, is US News & World Report rankings of universities. And even there, no specific person ends up having to take responsibility and "lose face" if their proteges have all the technical skill of a box of rocks.
Even such a peer review system would be subject to failure, but I think "having some skin in the game" would reduce the gaming. Thus, it would give potential employers a better chance to be sure they are hiring a competent person.
There's no way to fully block dishonest or incompetent (or both) people from passing the ocassional interview. But with a proper trust and reputation system in place, we could make it easier for competent, honest people to get hired. Even a 1% improvement in both directions would be worth billions to the economy, and I'm sure we could pretty easily do a better job than 1%.
I totally agree with you that requiring a certain amount of time on the job has very limited value in this kind of thing. But if you were being asked to vouch for someone's skill as a DBA, and your own reputation was on the line with that, wouldn't you want to spend some time working with that person? Observing them in action? Throwing a few curveballs at them to see if they can actually make at least a base hit on one?
I personally think such a system would have a lot more value, both to the profession and to the businesses who depend on us, than yet another "take a test, get some letters after your name". Even if the "test" involved having a sabotaged server to handle and some sort of video review or whatever.
Thus, so long as the discussion is on a cert "between X and Y other certs", I don't see any tremendous value to it. I'm sure there would be some value. What's been discussed sounds like it would be an improvement, maybe. It would have to be tested to really find out (as always).
But I do think you may be looking at it backwards. Don't think of it as an attempt to make something gameproof. Think of it as a way to incrementally make gaming it just that much harder. Security is always about raising the cost of intrusion. It's the same sort of concept. If it takes more work to fake a cert than it takes to earn it, then it's a worthwhile cert. If it takes less, then it's pretty much useless.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 30, 2010 at 6:55 am
Lynn Pettis (3/30/2010)
Hey, I was thinking possible blog post too, but go ahead.
Feel free to blog about it and if you get one out first I'll link to your post.
Lynn Pettis (3/30/2010)
I still stand by getting things a bit more fleshed out before going to the PASS board. Reason being you have to able to answer some tough questions about how the program might work. We haven't gotten that far, all we have right now are some ideas, both good and not so good, that need to be formalized some what and discussed.
I can see where you are coming from, but I don't see there being too much being accomplished until there is some kind of formal group working on it. A "free fro all" discussion like this is good to drum up support, but for actual work being accomplished and goals being set, not so good.
Lynn Pettis (3/30/2010)
Hopefully I can go back through this thread and do some of that over the next couple of days.
I'd love to see someone, and you would be a great choice, condense the main points of this thread into a document that could be submitted to Steve as an article or editorial and be commented on or be be submitted to the PASS board as a stepping stone.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
March 30, 2010 at 7:05 am
Good points Gus.
I agree with you that an apprentice-type program would be a better way to do it. Shoot, I believe in it because that's how I got into IT. I've had a couple of mentors that have moved along the path to where I am today.
Even with apprenticeship, I think there would need to be some sort of test that shows you are ready for the next level, like the belting system in martial arts.
Unfortunately you'd need to get the business world to buy into the apprenticeship idea and be willing to pay someone to learn on the job and you'd have to have people in the mentor role that can not only do, but teach and all to often the best at what they do aren't the ones who should be teaching. Since most businesses aren't willing (at least in the US) to even pay to train people who already work for them, it would be hard to get them to hire someone just to train.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
Viewing 15 posts - 376 through 390 (of 685 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply