[Fsfe-ie] Fwd: New Core Body Of Knowledge for the ICT Profession

Janet Hawtin lucychili at gmail.com
Sat Jul 14 01:02:13 CEST 2007

On 13 Jul 2007 14:27:00 +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran at 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

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.


More information about the FSFE-IE mailing list