Talk:SL Certification

"Examination"

I'm suggesting that any examinations for building or scripting disallow the use of prefabricated content; Any building work should be done in front of an examiner in-world, and if possible scripting should be done via VNC so peeps can't copy & paste.

SignpostMarv Martin 12:19, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

Yes, that's a great idea.

And I'd love to join/test. :)

Elle74

Not being able to copy and paste can be a bit rough. For more complicated scripting tests, the user should be provided with a library of prefabricated functions to use; this will reduce the amount of time required to both take and score the test, not to mention encourage code reuse (these functions would be available before hand and would be included in study material). Requiring the use of VNC is a bit rough (there should be standard cross platform instructions on how to set it up). Strife Onizuka 06:12, 24 April 2007 (PDT)

Speaking (er ... writing!) as someone who has been hacking code for over 33 years (eep!) I think I can say that most (if not all) coders keep their own 'libraries' of code segments available for re-use, mostly as a time-saving device. Copy/paste is a standard way of working and, I'd suggest, if one is testing someone on their memory for functions then any 'test' will take a whole lot longer if they are limited in this way. --Alison Wheels 09:16, 24 April 2007 (PDT)

Copy & Paste in this context refers to people ripping off other people's code.

SignpostMarv Martin 18:04, 24 April 2007 (PDT)

A 'show me what you can do' test in this situation is flawed because you have no knowledge of what's happening at the testee's end. Even if you can see what's happening on their computer, who's to say they aren't copying from print-outs, or even that it's the person you think it is? Asking people to explain their code or correct flawed scripts supplied to them may be a better solution. Some will cheat, but they gain little benefit if they can't actually do the work. --Lucius Nesterov 03:20, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

In-world Group

I understand that a closed group has been formed in SL to which certain people who have put their names down here - but not all - have been invited. Can the membership and purpose of this be clarified please? I can't find reference to it here on the wiki. --Ordinal Malaprop 05:27, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

Certification

Why are we looking at Modeling and Scripting as the first SL Certifications? Wouldn’t it be better to start with basic skills needed to operate within the SL environment and UI? As a Mentor/Greeter & Instructor for well over a year, I have had very few questions from new residents on modeling and scripting. However, I get many questions that start, “How do I...”

As a teacher in RL, I was taught that you start with basics then move into more advanced areas. We have mentors admitting at just about every meeting that they would benefit from basic skills training. One only has to listen to the Mentor group channel for a short while to hear mentors asking for answers to very basic questions. This indicates to me that we need to certify the volunteers on the basics before we teach modeling and scripting. I would be interested in understanding the reasoning behind modeling and scripting as initial certifications.

Jennifer McLuhan

Because no one hires mentors. Certifications are for telling if the person you are hiring is qualified or not. Gigs Taggart 17:57, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

So Gigs you are telling me this has nothing to do with the mentor certification program?

Jen

Apparently not. Gigs Taggart 20:35, 23 April 2007 (PDT)\

Perhaps it has more to do with entrepreneurs moving into SL, with little or no knowledge of it, and needing to find reputable people to produce work for them. Surely experts in the community have reputations already established by word of mouth. This seems mainly to reduce the risk to new residents. --Lucius Nesterov 03:28, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

Good topics, bad topics

I think we should focus on certifying skills, not topics. For instance, 3-D modeling techniques and how to use the tools is a good area to certify. "Weapons and vehicles" is not. "LSL communication protocol" is a good scripting topic, "attachments" is not. Keep in mind many of the things we're trying to certify are already covered in traditional game-design and 3-D Design collegiate curriculum, and we should look to that as a base model to start from. Hiro Pendragon

Who is the beneficiary?

Is the title appropriate for this section? It seems to be more general questions and answers. Maybe it should be divided into different sections. Lucius Nesterov

Is this only for the benefit of residents looking to hire a builder/scripter? If so, I'm not interested as I'm not for hire. I certainly won't object to work-for-hire people getting certified, though.

Will it be used, directly or indirectly, to the detriment of un-certified sellers of *pre-made* (not-for-hire) items? If so, and particularly if it costs money, it's yet another way for those who have connections to extract money and privilege from those who don't.

1. Who is the beneficiary of this plan?
2. What consequences are there for non-certification?
3. Will it cost money?

Anna Gulaev

Good questions to which I will add my own (and number yours)

4. Who will be providing the certification service?
5. Will a business providing certification services need to be certified?
6. How will this program scale as SL grows?

Strife Onizuka 06:45, 24 April 2007 (PDT)

7. What will be the responsibilities (if any) of a Certified person?
   Are certified persons expected to serve as "on call" mentors? Do these certified people take the place of a "live help" pool on a given topic?
8. How will certification be verified?
   Right now, I can call myself "Expert Scripter" and no one can challenge me on that. (though I wouldn't)... What process will be available to verify that a certification does indeed exist for this person?
9. Will certifications expire?
   back in July, SL was a different place, and LSL was a different animal. (I pick on LSL because I can't imagine how would could be tested for ability to BUILD). In just 9 short months, LSL has changed quite a bit. Not radically, most of what was good then is still good now.. but LSL is an ever changing language, with little-to-no official documentation from the group developing the actual language (unlike HTML/XHTML for example). Someone who was an expert in 2004 could be quite out of their depths now. I also wonder how many Lindens could pass LSL certification.

Winter Ventura 5:42pm (PDT), April 24, 2007

Answers to the above...

1. The corporate entities entering into SL who are completely clueless as to how it functions and can't afford to hire the ESC.
2. You're less likely to get hired by someone who prefers paper over portfolio.
3. Don't know. Makes sense that it would- I'm wondering if they'll accept payment in L$ :-P
4. A third party company/organisation who specialises in providing such certification (it was mentioned at the meeting, but I think I forgot to mention it in the notes I posted).
5. Businesses don't perform work, the employees do.
6. Refer to MySQL/PHP/MCSE certification processes for when the software in question gets upgraded.
7. No.
8. Probably as an extra field in the in-world profile, and a matching param for llRequestAgentData.

I think this is actually a really bad idea. If the point of this process is to act as a representation of technical proficiency for people hiring scripters or builders, it doesn't need to be programmatically accessible. Employers can just check a website that manages the "official" list of certified avatars. If we make it too easy for certification to be programmatically read by scripts, it could get turned into the program that Prokofy fears it is with certification acting as membership card in some club. Zetetic Aubret

1. See point 6.

SignpostMarv Martin 18:34, 24 April 2007 (PDT)

llRequestAgentData

Probably as an extra field in the in-world profile, and a matching param for llRequestAgentData. SignpostMarv Martin 18:34, 24 April 2007 (PDT)

I think this is actually a really bad idea. If the point of this process is to act as a representation of technical proficiency for people hiring scripters or builders, it doesn't need to be programmatically accessible. Employers can just check a website that manages the "official" list of certified avatars. If we make it too easy for certification to be programmatically read by scripts, it could get turned into the program that Prokofy fears it is with certification acting as membership card in some club. Zetetic Aubret

If the certification status is displayed via the in-world profile, then it should be available via llRequestAgentData.

However, if the status isn't displayed via the in-world profile, then there is no need for a param for it.

SignpostMarv Martin 10:15, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

Voices Against

This system is the final institution of the FIC. It's not a positive development, as the free market and free media should establish value for skills. A free market and free media also enable anyone new to be able to access that market and media without having to clear unnecessary hurdles and bastions of establishment thinking and procedure.

All that's happening here is that Linden Lab is dispensing licenses to create, completely overriding their concept of "your world/your imagination". That is, sure, anybody can go on rezzing a cube, but Lindens are now deciding, in Central Committee fashion, who does this *well enough* to be able to qualify to exist in their certified community. It runs entirely contrary to the notions of openness and creativity which they originally promoted. I personally will not seek to become certified in such a system prone to cronyism and corruption. It cannot help unsightly builds on the grid, unless you also anticipate having quality-control committees added on to vet content manditorily along with certification -- oh, is that coming next? The comparison to software and IT companies having developers' certifications is patently fraudulent: Linden Lab's role in shaping the Metaverse is not analogous to merely some software company; they are world-builders, and need to stop funnelling and bottle-necking with concepts like this.

Analogies to software companies that certify are false, because such RL companies are often publicly-traded with a great deal more reputation and transparency than Linden Lab has. Has anybody thought about how they will limit liability or resolve disputes and have fiscal responsibility for certified person who engage in fraud or shoddy workmanship?

Heretic Linden has now made a closed group, not visible in the Groups list, by invitation only, which ultimately institutionalizes the FIC as an actual discrete group of people, and among them are many with no obvious skills or reputation or capacity to objectively develop an impartial and professional system for certification, but only jumping on the bandwagon to get a seal of approval from LL. Prokofy Neva

I agree with Prokofy to a certain point. The SL Certification system should be done by parties who are either 1) Employed by Linden Labs or 2) They do not financially gain from Second Life. Competition who hold grudges against people like Prokofy or myself will seek to not even consider us for certification in our respected fields. That would be unfair and violate LL's stance of not getting involved in citizen disputes. If they want citizens to run this then remove it from the official LL milestones and let a citizen group run it. Wrestling Hulka

I'd been reading this 'certification' in a similar way to the many other software and hardware certifications in the IT industry out there. Nice to have the piece of paper, and it may show you know something (though not neccessarily that you can put it into 'real life' practice, and not something that you must have in order to be engaged to do the job. I'd agree that should Linden Labs suddenly demand that everyone building anything in SL be certified (a highly improbable idea in itself) it would be unworkable in practice (though would save us seeing some of the 'sights' we currently suffer on the grid!) --Alison Wheels 09:16, 24 April 2007 (PDT)

Quite - I was rather surprised to see certifications in IT being raised as examples of this in RL, as they are really only a way of proving that somebody isn't simply making up the fact that they have skill X (unless, of course, they are lying about their certification!) and their actual skill and professionalism is something that is only judgeable by careful individual interviewing by a skilled practitioner, examples of previous work and, mostly, how they actually perform once they are hired. A checklist of revision topics really doesn't help. A manager or customer who hires someone purely because of an MCSE or a good degree will be disappointed in short measure. The subject of how to properly judge someone's skills is a very complex one and in practice, managers and customers go on portfolios and performance. --Ordinal Malaprop 13:58, 24 April 2007 (PDT)

What, exactly, is the "problem" that certification "solves?" Normally if you want to get hired as a content creator, you create a portfolio of work for potentional employers to look at. I think the conspiracy theory here is that land owners will be able to ban non-certified creations. This would allow some more timid brands to control the "flying pink objects" problem in their space. Please, correct me if I'm wrong! :) OneBigRiver Stork

Certification is mainly for big business and to give SL the illusion of being mature. For example when I first stated in computers (shortly after the Abacus) noone have any experience of classes. Now big companies are asking for 4 years degree to use a 4 function calulator. Destiny Niles

What is the problem that this "solution" is intended to solve?

1. Quality control on the grid? But how does it differ than a content-vetting committee?
2. Frequent complains of fraud? But credentialled scripters or builders are just as capable of fraud and incompetence as anyone else, and without also adding a disputes resolution system to handle complaints of the "credentialed" building shoddy structures or not performing on contracts, it is meaningless.
3. If the problem universally claimed for Second Life is the steep learning curve and the lack of an intuitive user interface, how does making the knowledge more unreachable and more subject to controls help those chronic issues?
4. Who needs a set of credentialed builders and scripters? 1) those builders and scripters -- suggesting it is not enough of a reason, as it is self-referential 2) Linden Lab -- for reasons it has failed to make explicit in its recursive "general purpose" intro to this wiki.
5. What happened to "your world/your imagination" with this concept, that seeks to reward a tiny percentage of those a) willing and b) able to pass a credentialling process?

Prokofy Neva

Answers to Prok's questions:

1. • Portfolio is better than Paper.
   • Competent scripters are known amongst the scripting community, Competent builders are known amongs the building community etc.
   • Paper will only be useful to those who don't have the resources to check the skill and portfolio of a Resident, or are too paranoid to trust their reputation.
2. Agreed. This is where portfolio and reputation trumps paper.
3. I believe the phrase is "ZOMG l337NESS". The certification program is seperate to lowering the barriers of entry. It's more a case of saying "these people definately know their shit, these people probably do, but we don't know".
4. See point 1 in the above list.
5. Just as you have people coding for fun, making websites for fun, some people use SL as a source of income. Attaining MCSE status would likely make a bank more likely to give a business loan. Attaining LLCP, LLCM (Linden Lab Certified Programmer and Builder respectively :-P) status would make a bank more likely to shell out for a business loan.

SignpostMarv Martin 18:34, 24 April 2007 (PDT)

I did a little cleanup on the formatting.. it was getting confusing.

Winter Ventura 8:46pm (PDT) April 24, 2007

My Input, i.e. how not to do it.

1. Don't require classes. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing that some certification requires a certain class. If you have the skills, you should be able to take the test to prove it, without paying for and sitting through classes about stuff you already know. If you have to take a class, I'd venture to say you probably don't deserve the certification anyway.
2. Don't make it some silly "paper test". Skills need to be shown with actual real world scenarios, not some multiple choice question. Look at the Red Hat certification tests for some guidance here.
3. Don't make it expire at arbitrary intervals, or even at all. This is a blatant scam that some companies do to ensure ongoing income from certifications. I'm in favor of certifications that don't expire, like CompTIA. If you were good enough to get the certification once, then you probably have kept up with the changes since then, or can easily get up to speed. My A+ test I took in the 90s included information on how to calibrate 360k floppy disks. Am I still qualified to build and repair PCs? You bet.
4. Don't avoid improving your product to shore up certification income. I fully believe Oracle and Cisco keep their products difficult to use to support their network of certified professionals. This is similar to Dell using nonstandard parts so that only Dell repair centers can do repairs. It happens. Don't let it happen here.

Gigs Taggart 02:21, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

Versioning and Pricing

1. The cost of updating an old certification should be a percentage of the full cost equal to the percentage of change in LSL plus some small fixed rate no greater then 10$US or 5% of the cost of a full certification (which ever is less).
2. The major version number of the certification being offered shouldn't change until some threshold percentage of change has been made to LSL. So the SC2007 may be offered until 2010; this is to reduce the frequency of market forces pushing for certification updates.
3. Upgraded certifications will still bare their original major version with an appended hyphenated new major version or can be represent with the new certification handle.
   • So the 2010 upgrade of the 2007 certification would be SC2007-2010 or SC2010.
   • The 2015 upgrade to that certification would be SC2007-2015 or SC2015.
   • This will make users with older but upgraded certifications more attractive then newly certified users (suggests years of experience).

Old certifications shouldn't expire, just become less applicable and the upgrade path should be very affordable. Considering how little changes in languages, I would expect the major version certifications to last for about 3 years at least. Strife Onizuka 03:50, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

"Corporate Friendly Stamp" or "Structured Education"

The need for 'certification' is vague, and has caused people to question whether there is a hidden objective. In addition it is completely at odds with the essence of current web 2.0 systems of community reputation. More honesty about what the purpose of the certification is may help.

Corporate Friendly Stamp

edited based on comments

If the main purpose of certification is to assist employers in finding suitable residents to hire, then it may be useful, but can only achieve part of this aim. The term 'Corporate Friendly' is not used to mean 'freindly towards corporations', but more 'low risk'.

A positive aspect of certification is that, particularly if there is a cost involved in obtaining them, they show that a resident is commited to working in SL.

In contrast though it cannot demonstrate that an individual is creative (as mentioned above), is reliable, works to deadlines, considers the need of the client etc. In general the things that references and portfolio cover in the real-world. Plus a portfolio is far easier to supply in SL than RL since any object can be rezzed for the client to view, or instantly teleported to observe.

Some comments may appear out of context based on the above changes

Whether or not a person is corporate friendly or what their track record is, it is beyond the scope of certification (and thus this discussion). -- Strife Onizuka 04:35, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

It is relavent to the discussion if the main purpose of certification is to help corporations identify individuals to employ. If this is the case then general certification might harm the community at large and still not meet its main objective of protecting corporate interests. --Lucius Nesterov 04:54, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

No, it's not. People aren't hired if they aren't advertising and don't contact any prospective clients. Gigs Taggart 05:17, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

In general yes, but it depends on how the information is made available. Being so closely linked to SL there is the potential for a list (or league table) of residents to be produced, either by searching profiles, the use of a bot, details being released by a third party etc. An individual might be approached because of their placing on this list (e.g. "we need the best vehicle scripter, s/he is X"). With your alternatives, how do you approach a client if you have no idea which companies are considering entering SL, how much SL advertising is in places those not in SL would be exposed to? It's all speculation, but this is what I had in mind when I posted the reply.

--Lucius Nesterov 15:40, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

How do you determine if someone is "Corporate Friendly"? To complicate things there are different corporate models that people may or may not be compatible with. Sure it would be nice to know who if a person is a total sellout but how do you quantize it? How do you test for it? "Corporate Friendly" Certifications sounds like a system that will punish those not certified and be abused by those who are (once you were certified it would be difficult to loose the certification). The flaws outweigh the benefits. -- Strife Onizuka 05:27, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

That's a fair point, but it could be argued that any certification will punish those not certified. That's its purpose; it is proof of competency, while non-certified people must be considered to lack the competency unless they prove otherwise.

--Lucius Nesterov 15:40, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

Good point, I should have limited that argument to only the abuse. -- Strife Onizuka 17:04, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

Hi, Lucius. Can you please limit your very valuable criticism to the discussion page? Thanks. 1) "Read as: Yes it will cost money, if the 'third party' is anything other than community-based volunteers. As in the real-world the cost will depend on the duration, presitge and popularity of the courses" 2) "Of course anyone can always select an object and use the 'edit' tool to determine who created it - is that so very hard?"

Heretic Linden 18:01, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

Apologies. Of course you never actually answered the question of whether it would cost ("don't know" is a valid answer) or whether LL would profit ("would like to" is also a valid answer). Also the second point above wasn't me.

--Lucius Nesterov 14:27, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

I'm puzzled, Heretic. If this exercise is really supposed to be about creating a corps or group of cadres of competent persons who really are skilled at what they claim to be skilled at for the use of corporations doing business in Second Life, why is the group they must join by your or other Linden invitation only hidden in the groups list, and hidden on their profile? Doesn't that run counter to the entire premise here? Is this perhaps merely an oversight (check off "show in groups list" on the menu). It's also important to see the list of those who are claiming expertise in being able to have the impartiality and ability to devise a certification system. So far, one can find in the list quite a few who are looking for a seal of approval but don't understand what is involved in impartial and publicly-credible institution-building. There's also some concern about anything that is "volunteer and community-based". That can be a very misleading concept, which merely means hand-picked friends of Lindens, in our setting -- there's no "community" in any wider, public and transparent sense (especially with a closed, invitation-only group). If this system must go forward (and I oppose it as unnecessary and inhibitive privileging and credentialing that has no place in an open-ended creative world), then it should be done by a professional third-party outsider that is not rooted and embedded in the Linden Lab/resident axis of favouritism. If you set up the usual favour bank, Heretic, it simply will not have any credibility in the corporate world which you intend to woo with this concept. The idea that such profit-making companies would somehow be suspect merely for making a profit would be false, as people tend to screen employees, work to a standard, and have credibility when their company has to face a bottom line. The usual group of volunteers cannot carry it or have crediblity.

--Prokofy Neva 14:27, 25 April 2007 (PDT)

Structured Education

If instead the purpose is to create a system of structured education, in the form of 'person X has completed class-A level-2 so they can now take class-A level-3', then there is a debate as to whether it is necessary. Is a more 'academic' system better than the current practical, you could say vocational, tutorial system. Is teaching principles better than teaching projects? This is a debate for educators and residents.

The part that involved Linden Labs is whether this information (the level of someone's achievements) should be made public record. Which again is debateable.

--Lucius Nesterov 04:08, 25 April 2007 (PDT)