March 29, 2010 at 8:47 pm
CirquedeSQLeil (3/29/2010)
dma-669038 (3/29/2010)
I meant that as a joke, kinda lost it 🙂 Anyways nobody has to be 'certified' to discuss..we are sql server professionals and involved in this community, is that not enough? And why would we lose input from people like Jeff and Grant? And why are we taking this person so seriously? To my mind that seems to be the issue, everyone taking one person seriously and for all you know she may be laughing her behind off.I believe she finds this to be quite the game now.
Told you. Should have believed me 😉
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
March 29, 2010 at 8:50 pm
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.
March 29, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Lynn Pettis (3/29/2010)
One suggestion was a project review. If structured properly, wouldn't it be possible to use an automated system to test, for instance, setting up a mirrored database in a high availabilty environment (2 partners and a witness)? If the code is provided in a structured manner showing the order and which systems the code is run on, the test would be was it successfully created or not.To do this, all the necessary requirements would need to be provided up front. In an automated test, there couldn't be issues that may occur, unless those were addressed up front as well to see if they are dealt with or mitigated through code or other methods.
I could see a virtual review (ala virtual conferences) could also be done to reduce travel requirements for candidates and review board members if there are no Users Groups within easy travelling distance.
Users Groups could perhaps even use NetMeeting or what ever it is today, to facilitate such interaction to reduce travel requirements.
Certainly would need to be a virtual review in the sake of cost savings and time. Teleconference or just a phone interview in worst case scenario.
As for the project, I would have to think more on that one. I see that as being something extremely easy to game (ala braindumps etc).
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 29, 2010 at 8:54 pm
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.
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).
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 29, 2010 at 8:59 pm
CirquedeSQLeil (3/29/2010)
Lynn Pettis (3/29/2010)
One suggestion was a project review. If structured properly, wouldn't it be possible to use an automated system to test, for instance, setting up a mirrored database in a high availabilty environment (2 partners and a witness)? If the code is provided in a structured manner showing the order and which systems the code is run on, the test would be was it successfully created or not.To do this, all the necessary requirements would need to be provided up front. In an automated test, there couldn't be issues that may occur, unless those were addressed up front as well to see if they are dealt with or mitigated through code or other methods.
I could see a virtual review (ala virtual conferences) could also be done to reduce travel requirements for candidates and review board members if there are no Users Groups within easy travelling distance.
Users Groups could perhaps even use NetMeeting or what ever it is today, to facilitate such interaction to reduce travel requirements.
Certainly would need to be a virtual review in the sake of cost savings and time. Teleconference or just a phone interview in worst case scenario.
As for the project, I would have to think more on that one. I see that as being something extremely easy to game (ala braindumps etc).
It would be more difficult to game it if you also had to do a presentation on it to a users group. A question and answer session could cause someone to who used a braindump to complete the project to stumble on an unexpected question.
Rermeber, one of the ideas presented with the MCJ was also to look at increasing the available pool of presenters. The idea being as you move up the ladder you need to be able to present ideas and solutions to others.
March 29, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Gift Peddie (3/29/2010)...
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.
Stop doing this. Now. Asking people for their personally identifying information, is both offensive and dangerous as it facilitates identity theft.
I certainly hope that no one will be foolish enough to provide this information publicly.
And Gift, I cannot help but notice that you yourself have not provided this information to us. So unless you are a hypocrite, I expect that you will now apply your own rules to yourself, and will stop participating in this conversation and stop harassing everyone.
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
March 29, 2010 at 9:04 pm
CirquedeSQLeil (3/29/2010)
Is this our Illustrious Gift Peddie?
Wow, almost perfect English at that site. Why it's almost as if she only writes incoherent English, when she wants too!
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
March 29, 2010 at 9:11 pm
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.
So you've decided to become a Troll, is that it? Do you really think that spamming this thread is going to accomplish anything good for you? I can assure that it will not. Your prior behavior may have been close to the line of acceptable behavior, but Spamming and Trolling is over-the-line on every site on the Internet.
Of course, I expect that you will blame everyone else for the consequences of your own actions ...
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
March 29, 2010 at 9:30 pm
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".
To be fair Jeff, I think that you have to consider the possibility that this fellow was not what he claimed to be. I have known a bit more than my share of Math Ph.D.s and while I could go on for days about their strange shortcomings, an inability to do simple math has never been one of them. Honestly, I've never know even a PhD candidate in Mathematics who couldn't have answered that question in her sleep. I have to believe that they were trying to scam you and you just caught them at it.
... There is a way to beat every system and every poser, liar, and ring-knocker in the world knows how to do it.
Yeah, but it's not a binary system Jeff. For instance, you could say the same thing about Computer Security, but it's not a valid argument against better Computer Security(*). Why? Because the real goal is quantitative, not binary, that is, the real purpose of better Computer Security is to maximize the effort, cost, skill and opportunity window it takes to to get around it and thus to minimize the chances that anyone ever will.
(*-- Though Heaven knows I sure have heard that actual exact same argument against Computer Security many, many times in the last 30 years.)
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
March 29, 2010 at 9:35 pm
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:
2. I'm not sure how you'd get a peer review board in place without somehow vetting the members of the board by requiring MCM or something similar until you have your first set of successful "MCJ" candidates.
To be honest, I'm not sure we'll ever see something like this, especially independent of MS, but I think a realistic goal for an organization like PASS is to publish professional development guidelines and a way to track your development. Similar to what teachers have to do to remain certified and doctors and other professionals have to do to maintain part of their profession. If PASS were to do this it could build the tracking into the PASSPort web site. You could list your reading list, user group attendance, SQLSaturday's, classes, and other opportunities. Sure, there wouldn't be any real way to verify that what is listed is true, but it gives a start. It could also be the start to developing a professional certification as well.
My last contribution tonight, if you really believe that this should be a priority for PASS then you should let members of the PASS board know. You can find contact information on the PASS web site. Of course they are going to ask how much time you are able and willing to invest in the process.
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 29, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Lynn Pettis (3/29/2010)
CirquedeSQLeil (3/29/2010)
Lynn Pettis (3/29/2010)
One suggestion was a project review. If structured properly, wouldn't it be possible to use an automated system to test, for instance, setting up a mirrored database in a high availabilty environment (2 partners and a witness)? If the code is provided in a structured manner showing the order and which systems the code is run on, the test would be was it successfully created or not.To do this, all the necessary requirements would need to be provided up front. In an automated test, there couldn't be issues that may occur, unless those were addressed up front as well to see if they are dealt with or mitigated through code or other methods.
I could see a virtual review (ala virtual conferences) could also be done to reduce travel requirements for candidates and review board members if there are no Users Groups within easy travelling distance.
Users Groups could perhaps even use NetMeeting or what ever it is today, to facilitate such interaction to reduce travel requirements.
Certainly would need to be a virtual review in the sake of cost savings and time. Teleconference or just a phone interview in worst case scenario.
As for the project, I would have to think more on that one. I see that as being something extremely easy to game (ala braindumps etc).
It would be more difficult to game it if you also had to do a presentation on it to a users group. A question and answer session could cause someone to who used a braindump to complete the project to stumble on an unexpected question.
Rermeber, one of the ideas presented with the MCJ was also to look at increasing the available pool of presenters. The idea being as you move up the ladder you need to be able to present ideas and solutions to others.
I forgot about the presentation piece and the pool of presenters. This would help substantially with the PASS speaker pool.
I think we need a recap of where we stand now.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 29, 2010 at 9:47 pm
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.
2. I'm not sure how you'd get a peer review board in place without somehow vetting the members of the board by requiring MCM or something similar until you have your first set of successful "MCJ" candidates.
To be honest, I'm not sure we'll ever see something like this, especially independent of MS, but I think a realistic goal for an organization like PASS is to publish professional development guidelines and a way to track your development. Similar to what teachers have to do to remain certified and doctors and other professionals have to do to maintain part of their profession. If PASS were to do this it could build the tracking into the PASSPort web site. You could list your reading list, user group attendance, SQLSaturday's, classes, and other opportunities. Sure, there wouldn't be any real way to verify that what is listed is true, but it gives a start. It could also be the start to developing a professional certification as well.
My last contribution tonight, if you really believe that this should be a priority for PASS then you should let members of the PASS board know. You can find contact information on the PASS web site. Of course they are going to ask how much time you are able and willing to invest in the process.
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.
March 29, 2010 at 10:09 pm
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?
Wayne
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008
Author - SQL Server T-SQL Recipes
March 29, 2010 at 10:09 pm
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.
2. I'm not sure how you'd get a peer review board in place without somehow vetting the members of the board by requiring MCM or something similar until you have your first set of successful "MCJ" candidates.
To be honest, I'm not sure we'll ever see something like this, especially independent of MS, but I think a realistic goal for an organization like PASS is to publish professional development guidelines and a way to track your development.
In all likelihood that will be the case. If we can get something together that we like then we can try to push it up the chain.
Similar to what teachers have to do to remain certified and doctors and other professionals have to do to maintain part of their profession. If PASS were to do this it could build the tracking into the PASSPort web site. You could list your reading list, user group attendance, SQLSaturday's, classes, and other opportunities. Sure, there wouldn't be any real way to verify that what is listed is true, but it gives a start. It could also be the start to developing a professional certification as well.
I think that if PASS could track it, all the better. Even if it were to be run and owned by MS, there should be some cooperation between the two entities on something of this nature.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 29, 2010 at 10:50 pm
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?
Revoked may not be the correct term, more like not renewed. I actually believe she mentioned it once in one of her rants on another thread a while back. It wasn't this thread.
Viewing 15 posts - 361 through 375 (of 685 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply