> On 10/30/2015 12:41 AM, Michael Meskes wrote:
>>> I think this should be a closed list run by the Linux Foundation.
>>
>> Why's that? I'm willing to put up a list we can use for discussion.
>
> That's also fine. I just mean "not an @postgresql.org list".
>
>>> Because some members of the community have a conflict of interest, I'm
>>> not certain we can have a certification endorsed by "the whole
>>> community".
>>
>> Depends on what you call "endorsed". Nobody expects us to say this is
>> the one
>> and only.
>
> I'm just saying that asking the EDB staff to endorse a certification
> which competes with EDB's certification is not something I personally
> would do.
>
>>
>>> I would be willing to review the test questions (and suggest some), as
>>> well as reviewing overall coverage.
>>
>> Ok, thanks. BTW we're not talking questions here, but tasks to be
>> performed.
>
> Oh, does LF have the ability to administer that kind of test? That
> would be awesome.
>
>>> However, the first question we should have with this is "what problem
>>> are we solving?"
>>>
>>> That is, are the EnterpriseDB/SRA/etc. certifications not good enough?
>>
>> At the very least they are not vendor neutral.
>>
>>> to make money off PostgreSQL. If there is a deficiency, we need to
>>> make
>>> sure that an LF certification will address that specific deficiency.
>>
>> Again, by its very setup I think it solves the major problem.
>
> You haven't said what that problem is?
I guess that is related to the practice of proprietary software world.
Saludos,
Gilberto Castillo
ETECSA, La Habana, Cuba