Yes. And I’d like to add that some posts does not contain enough base information e.g. icinga’s version(s) and I and maybe others will not spend their time or even does not have that time to drag them out of them.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many people (especially when they are new) are disappointed to not get any answer and never turn back. As a result you can see only few number of posts not only for your feedback votings.
Here is another example which moderators should clarify. For me it’s unclear whether is make sense to continue a 3 year old thread.
I think it’s not, especially when a thread is already marked as solved. In this case the moderators should react on the new post. But if it’s ok or even recommended, this should be stated somewhere (which might be already the case and I’ve missed it all the time).
As far as I understand forum etquette (which is honestly not super well), usually there is no reaction from mods in this kind of case.
If someone wants to continue a dead post, they are free to comment on it - but they should also not neccessarily expect a response.
So it’s not recomended anywhere, but it is also not prohibited, if it fits with the post.
In this specific case, the user asked a new question referring to an old topic (so I suggested opening a new one instead).
Yes. And I’d like to add that some posts does not contain enough base information e.g. icinga’s version(s) and I and maybe others will not spend their time or even does not have that time to drag them out of them.
I don’t feel like that is the moderations responsibility. We already have a template that pops up as you select a category, where you can easily see what kind of information would be helpful to include in your post. And you can just fill it in.
If someone chooses to delete that and leave the info out, then that’s on them.
If you feel like we should include something else in the templates, I would be more than happy to include it 
But in the end it is the users choice of how much effort they want to put in when asking a question - which is usually reflected in the effort people return in their answers.
My view on this exam would be a realistic lab exercise performed on a cloud-based infrastructure that already includes an Icinga deployment, with usual modules Icinga2, Icingaweb, Director, etc. The instructions would be like:
Make it impossible to complete within the allocated time, and grade the amount of work produced, and the quality.
Use no multiple-choice questions, these are usually too easy as the answer is within the question, they are intensive on language proficiency (not everyone is an English or German native speaker), and are prone to cheating.
Do not forebid the use of Google, it is part of the tools people have in real-life circumstances. An expert will not need Google and will accomplish tasks faster, and will get higher grades.
Thanks for organising, it was nice to watch. Please schedule the next one and announce the timing at least 2 weeks in advance so calendars can be blocked 
Perhaps make it quarterly (every 3 months), with a fixed recurrence.
After booking the date you can start polling for special interests.
Thank you!
Admittedliy, it was a bit short notice this time - usually we announce the call at least a month in advance, but somehow didn’t post the announcement…
For the next one, we will probably also start collecting a few topics to talk about in advance as well!
This is a really good concept!
Having those attempts be graded would need an own implementation to check how far the person made it automatically (since we don’t want to rely on manual grading), and this would mean a bunch of work for our developers. And it would of course also have a higher maintenance budget than a standard test.
It’s a super cool idea, really, but I am not sure if we want to spend so much of our developers’ time on it…
I’ll definitely add it to the agenda of the next strategy meeting though!
The first implementation is going to be a multiple choice test, but we tried to keep the level of entry (language wise) as low as possible.
We are going to test it with people of different levels of language profficiency before running the first round at the summit, but I can see how it might be an issue.
Thank you for you thoughts on that!
Maybe the advanced test, with manual grading, would be a good fit for a consultant certification program?
