The proposal below is from a group which has criteria for inclusion. This document is being proposed to government as a criteria for reducing professional indemnity insurance for the IT sector. ie There will be a relationship between the government getting cheaper insurance and hiring people who match this kind of profile.
The group has projects which talk about ethics and being in the public interest, They also have specific criteria for inclusion as a member and their subjects they recognise tend to be more business computing than computing science. MS product features strongly. FOSS stuff less so.
It has been said by one of their people that this is because the members do not have an interest in the foss subjects, or that the foss things might be considered if they were of interest to members, but this is sort of a closed loop, ie if youre in youre probably in because you match the standard degree with msce kinds of training which they match against.
The group disagrees with my concerns.
I feel they are scoping peoples' right to participate in the IT sector by excluding people from their criteria because their criteria suit the interests of members and also because the process of choosing people by matching a standard process is a better match for broadcast software liks ms. Following a standard path is something to do if youre working with a supplied tool set. If youre a member of a community which participates in constructing the tool set the sources of reference and strategies for developing solutions will be more diverse, informal learning from niche specialists in our communities is a good fit for this kind of skill development.
It is a bad fit for distributed communities. FOSS groups often have diverse experience and the act of participation in an open community of development is the means of improving people.
There are other groups in AU following the same line of thinking. Defining a scope for who is trusted in IT around a normal route to skills. In my opinion at least in this form this is basically MS marketing in a fancy frock. I think membership is a poor alternative for transparent and reviewed practices possible with open code.
Because these groups are interested in describing people who do not fit their model as untrusted I am thinking about ethics and free software and how we reflect the kinds of ethics we do have. Personally it is my experience that foss people are the most authentic and direct people i have met. There is nowhere to hide in foss.
Would be interested in other people's ideas about this kind of document and whether groups where you are are doing the same kinds of things.
What kinds of approaches can foss communities use to provide a constructive alternative conversation which does not exclude people but which focuses on recognising the strengths of open collaboration and peer review.
Probably the scoping will provide only one flavour of person and folks will soon need to look beyond that source? tbh It just feels very old fashioned.
Janet
---------- Forwarded message ----------
The Australian Computer Society have released a Discussion Paper "Redefining And Building The ICT Profession: Core Body Of Knowledge Review" (21 June, 2007 Version 2.0).
In January the ACS combined its Accreditation, Assessment and Appeals Board and Membership Standards Board into a new Professional Standards (PS) Board. The new Board is reviewing the ACS Core Body of Knowledge (CBOK) by June 2008. The Board has invited comment on the Discussion Paper (details in the paper): http://www.acs.org.au/attachments/acs_CBOK_Position_Paper.pdf.
Contents:
List of Acronyms 1. Introduction 2. Core Body of Knowledge revision process 3. Defining the ICT/Computing Profession 4. Rationale for the ACS Core Body of Knowledge 5. Current Core Body of Knowledge 6. Some initial common ground 7. Moving forward 8. Remaining issues 9. References Appendix A Professional Standards Board Membership Appendix B ACS Qualifications Framework for ICT Professionals
Hi Janet,
It does seem the that "Ethics" row in Appendix B avoids talking about the ethical expectations/questions that procurer or decision maker should be aware of.
...but I haven't seen proposals like this in Ireland, so I'm afraid I can't point to any comparison.
On 13 Jul 2007 14:27:00 +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org wrote:
...but I haven't seen proposals like this in Ireland, so I'm afraid I can't point to any comparison.
In the UK ITHub is a part of the conceptual family which relates to this model. In the US Techsoup is related to the model. In SA we have a group called CISA community information South Australia. they have partnered with Techsoup USA to make AU Donortec. This model brokers both bulk proprietory software to the sector at discounted rates and also advises on IT contractor selection and projects to the not for profit sector. There was also a component of the model which advised to government what the not for profit sector wanted in IT. They have set up the model to work with a group which identifies which IT professionals to trust.
ACS is working with government to identify sets of information which represent their idea of a core body of knowledge which they would test in order to recommend people be considered a trusted IT person.
The logic of the model is tied back into professional indemnity insurance. Australia has recently bought into public liability insurance so that people need to pay insurance in order to book a room and have a meeting. This has been a cost for people doing small grass roots events and even for older people wanting to have a cup of tea and get together.
I am seeing this brokering/insuring/trust/scoping people as in if they have gone through a specified program model as a structure which will reduce peoples ability to participate freely. It will be a cost for new entrants and does not mesh with the way that open distributed communties help everyone along in learning how to do things better.
It is good to hear that there are not similar thoughts happening in IE but AU government is often adopting ideas which have been recommended by people from elsewhere so it is likely there are other combinations of these kinds of thinking elsewhere.
I feel that it would be a good time for open technology communities to be talking about how being able to see transparent code and also being able to see the conversations and development communities is a strong alternative model for ensuring trust and quality which does not cost the communities in terms of reduced access to participation or needing to subscribe to a broker for courses and testing.
Perhaps I worry too much but these folks feel structurally counterproductive. I hope they wake up one morning and want to make ACS 2.0 and realise that all the things which fence people out also fence themselves.
Janet