Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ianrlynch@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksog6G9B5Qifaw-J9NyY3b13C8xWAH6CvkaXJLLdOjAK3LQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAP-ksogbDvLhZx_pyg_bpUa6tF6DAOM6k7HOtAvSMFqWjd3nsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADHP4mwDsoaOakT8ZUAL9_oW5S7bGOjt_gT7xZGQFZk9WSUBzg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOap24J=y-5WGojXkzQRGZpbLtUZaJBJ=sbeAcNgLPH+gmZ49A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksog6G9B5Qifaw-J9NyY3b13C8xWAH6CvkaXJLLdOjAK3LQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:32:50 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAOap24KTOaJktfBoTetSPtwc7aT_LZ_XQSFM+vfVA3T_2DyvTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Seeking OpenOffice consultants -- help us validate our new
 consultants listings
From: Ian Lynch <ianrlynch@gmail.com>
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00235452ecf41e07c604cb0f5e55

--00235452ecf41e07c604cb0f5e55
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 1 October 2012 21:46, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Ian Lynch <ianrlynch@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1 October 2012 20:25, Albino B Neto <bino28@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > These three are closely-related and it will probably require an
> >> > iterative approach to get these right.  So it would be of great help
> >> > to me if a few (3-4) consultants on the ooo-dev list would be willing
> >> > to work with me to get their listings added now.  This may require
> >> > some back-and-forth as we adjust the schema or uncover additional
> >> > policy nuances.  But better to find this out early.
> >>
> >> +1. Me (Portuguese - Brazil).
> >>
> >> > practice == one or more areas of practice.  I'd like to use this for
> >> > categorization, so it will be a fixed list of options.  Currently I'm
> >> > proposing: Deployment, Migration, Extensions,  Training,
> >> > Customization. Other.    Are there any other areas we should mention
> >> > specifically?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> > Are these fields reasonable?  Any others we should have?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> > And again, getting some real, specific, non-fake data added will help
> >> > validate the design.
> >>
> >
> > Here is some real data.
> >
> > <consultant>
> >         <name>The Learning Machine, Ltd</name>
> >             <country>Global</country>
> >             <practice>Certification</practice>
> >             <practice>User Skills</practice>
> >         <description>The Learning Machine, Ltd provides certification of
> IT
> > user skills in the context of Apache Open Office, accredited by the UK
> > national Regulators and referenced to the European Qualifications
> > Framework. We work through organisations such as schools, colleges and
> > adult education providers.</description>
> >         <website>https://theingots.org/community/CertOOo</website>
> >         <email>ian.lynch@theingots.org</email>
> >         <phone>+44 (0) 1827305940</phone>
> >     </consultant>
> >
> >
> > name == name of your entity, could be your personal name or name of your
> > company
> >
> > country == one or more ISO country codes that you do business in.  If
> > you do business everywhere you can say "Global"
> >
> > practice == one or more areas of practice.  I'd like to use this for
> > categorization, so it will be a fixed list of options.  Currently I'm
> > proposing: Deployment, Migration, Extensions,  Training,
> > Customization. Other.    Are there any other areas we should mention
> > specifically?
> >
> > I'm saying certification rather than training because others provide the
> > training we simply provide certification of the outcomes of the training
> > for users rather than developers.
> >
>
> OK.  I will add "Certification".
>
> How do you distinguish a practice in "User Skills" from "Training"?
> Or is this something else entirely?
>

Training supports development of user skills, certification confirms they
have been acquired. Separating the training from the certification reduces
the risk of conflicts of interest. User skills are for people that use the
software as opposed to professional IT people like developers, sys admins
etc. We can certificate those too but so far the market seems more likely
to be viable in the user space. One way of classifying things could be
Training at the top level and Certification as a sub-category without
necessarily separating out the target audience for the certification. I
doubt there will be a lot of certification consultants so it might be
better to do it that way, it's simply that it can also be confusing when we
don't actually offer training ourselves, schools and colleges do that and
we QA the outcomes independently.

Not sure if that helps but I can go along with whichever way you think
works best overall.

-Rob
>
>
> > description == plain text, no HTML, description, limit of 300
> > characters.  It should be factual, not an advertisement.
> >
> > website == URL of your website
> >
> > email (optional) == contact email address
> >
> > phone number (optional) == contact phone number
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ian
> >
> > Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
> >
> > www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
> >
> > The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
> > Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
> > Wales.
>


-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

--00235452ecf41e07c604cb0f5e55--