Re: Money spending, questions for the candidates

On 12/1/07, Dave Neary <bolsh gnome org> wrote:
> Hi,
> Diego Escalante Urrelo wrote:
> > I still don't think Foundation should get involved into saying place X
> > is an approbed training center, I fear that would go beyond its scope.
> But the foundation could publish a syllabus and some sample exams, and
> then licence training institutes and companies to offer the training
> (with quality control of the training course) - in the way LPI does.

Doing that quality control could eat some (human) resources. Also as
John says this could easily lead to an unintentioned favouritism. I
totally agree with him about being against partnering with an entity
over another.
The cons would outweight the benefits, I think we would get a lot of
free problems from stuff like this. I imagine fountains of FUD on
every corner.

I really don't like the idea.

> In fact, this would be a decent follow-on from the idea that Andy Oram
> proposed (don't have the link right now) about having quizzes at the
> bottom of documentation pages to ensure that the material is
> understandable and that the lessons to be learned are absorbed by the
> reader - both to help the reader validate their learning, and to get
> live feedback on documentation quality to identify areas in need of
> improvement.

This sounds like a nice idea, like a GNOMEpardy :). I think it could
take a good ammount of work to ellaborate those questions however.
Consider that we would also have to create and maintain some
infrastructure for this.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]