Re: RFC: a new try for an official community approved certification

I don't really have any business being in this discussion, but I figured
I'd toss this in anyway. I realize it's not in-line with what many of you
are thinking, but it may be a good example to follow if we align
expectations with what it provides. Also, apologies if this has come up;
I've been trying to follow but there have been a lot of messages.

In the US, to get an Amerature Radio license you have to study the
requisite material, which includes the exam questions and answers. The exam
is administered by anyone who has passed the VE (Volunteer Examiner) exam
and is 2nd or 3rd level. There are currently 3 license levels: Technician,
General, and Extra. Each one has more in-depth question, but all of the
questions and answers for all levels are public. The exam taken is a
randomized subset of those questions. (I believe it's something like 10%? I
could be wrong without looking it up.)

As for mechanics of administering the exam, at least three VEs need to be
present who are not related to you and who are of the level you're testing
for or higher. Due to Covid, remote exams are now allowed/more common, but
are done with webcam on during the exam so the VE can watch.

While this is obviously easy to game, the expectation is that if you passed
the exam, even if you only studied the questions and answers, you'd have
the basic amount of knowledge needed to operate at the license level you
passed with.

Jim

On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:26 AM Robert Bernier <robert7390(at)comcast(dot)net>
wrote:

> Guys,
>
> I still have bad memories when we tried this the last time some 15 years
> ago.
>
> Let's do this in small steps:
> - Create a mail list just for this thread
> - Instead of creating an approved certification how's about developing an
> RFC of sorts outlining expected competencies for various classifications of
> knowledge (that should be real fun) is expected to carry out certain tasks.
> Then, after there's some sort of agreement in the community.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Robert Bernier
> robert(dot)bernier(at)percona(dot)com
>
>
>