Hello Waithaka,
Perhaps let us not judge that the proposed bill by the CS to be a duck
before we have even seen or heard from it. Also, the only reason why I am
entertaining this bill is that unlike the previous one, is that we are
being invited to put forward constructive proposals.
Now, what are some of the professions we have in the software industry?
> 1. Programmers / developers
> 2. System Administrators
> 3. Database Administrators
> 4. Enterprise Architects
> 5. UX Designers
> Now, try making a common regulation for those 5 out of a possible
> hundreds…
If we are talking about a peer reviewed process by committees of
technologists from varied backgrounds then establishing whether a person is
qualified to undertake the tasks that they claim proficiency in would be a
walk in the park.
For instance, if you came to me and claimed to be a network engineer /
system admin I would be able to ask you a few pertinent questions that
would settle the matter very quickly.
If beyond that you wanted to claim that you are advanced/expert/arch level,
then that would be between you and your prospective employer (broadly used
to cover contract/consultancy services). You would need to provide them
with the relevant certifications from the various vendors.
In lieu of this, it will either be up to you to do some social networking
and get the recommendation of a certified person at that level or even
better and as happens currently, you will have to be individually
interviewed by the client’s trusted technologist who would ask you for your
portfolio and recommendations from other related work. They could further
protect themselves by withholding your payment until you have delivered on
their requirements, with the the further option of lodging a complaint
against you from this body that will be established.
For new concepts that would be cutting edge, then the current principle
remains valid. Patent your idea then work towards demonstrating its
usefulness and the proposed applications and a well formed team of
technologists will give you the support and approval that you need.
There could also be an appeals mechanism within the proposal where the
entire community could be lobbied for support. A Reddit type of system
could be used to upvote consensus.
If all fails then take yourself to a jurisdiction/community that gets you
and let those that put you down burn in the glare of your success.
AS FOR THOSE SAYING THAT THIS WILL STIFLE NEW TECHNOLOGY. HOW DO YOU EXPECT
SOMEONE TO DEVELOP CUTTING EDGE TECH IF THEY CANNOT EVEN DEMONSTRATE BASIC
ICT COMPETENCY FROM ANY OF THE MANY FIELDS THAT ALREADY EXIST?!
You would never be able to code/develop that new thingamajig if you cannot
even show the ability to put something reasonable from what exists
currently. And remember that we are talking about those who do not have any
currently recognizable documentation to support your proficiency (this is
my assumption until I can see the final proposed bill).
Regards,
Kevin
On 18 December 2017 at 17:58, Ngigi Waithaka via kictanet <
