> It's a minimal foundation that employers can assume so they don't have
> to check that themselves, they can concentrate on other aspects, and
> it's a known stable foundation, minimal as it may be.
But I think this is the precise problem with it being supported by the HF.
I don't think it's a minimal foundation at all (almost regardless of it's content).
I think we've learned by now, as a broad programming community, that there's a classical logical fallacy here - (some) "good" programmers can do well on these exams, but that
doesn't mean you
must complete this well in order to be a "good" programmer. There's many issues here among them that "good programmer" is only defined respect to organisational context anyway.
I think it's completely fine and reasonable for a private company (Serokell) to be offering this certification, especially one such as them that has real experience in the Haskell ecosystem and plenty of people contributing; but I think what would be a very bad situation is that if the HF itself, and the broad Haskell (hiring) ecosystem got the idea that this was something all candidates should seek achieve. The fact that the HF is explicitly supporting it, is, for me, a disappointing outcome from a body that, I had hoped would try and stay (somewhat) independent. Hence asking for a clarification on any potential conflict of interest here.
--
Noon