I am sure most people reading this are aware that VCDX applications must be submitted in English and must be defended in English. This is a weakness of the program. The VCDX blueprint says nothing about measuring one's English communication skills, and yet to some extent we must be. Although I have never moderated a defense panel in which I thought, "Wow, this guy would pass if only he had better English skills," many people are deterred from even attempting VCDX by this requirement.
It's been a longstanding goal of mine to improve this situation. This is why, in another post, I mentioned that we were considering a trial program in which people could defend in German. This does not represent a permanent change in policy. Finding the best way to internationalize a program like VCDX is a difficult choice. Below, I lay out various options, and their pros and cons. I invite comments and discussion.
1. Allow people to defend in languages in which a critical mass of speakers exists within the VCDX panelist pool.
ADVANTAGES: Inexpensive. Relatively easy to implement in a way that is prima facie fair.
DISADVANTAGES: The process of adding new languages is slow, because it's dependent on the availability of bilingual panelists. It's also non-deterministic. Someone might ask the program, "When will I be able to defend in French? 2016, maybe?" We would not be able to answer concretely.
2. Give non-native speakers of English extra time in the defense session.
ADVANTAGES: Relatively inexpensive (panelists' time is valuable, but when they're in a defense session for a day, that is mostly a sunk cost). Procedurally easy to administer.
DISADVANTAGES: It's impossible to document who is and is not a non-native speaker of English. Many non-native English speakers have excellent English skills (for example, in the Scandinavian countries). This requirement would be gamed: candidates with excellent English skills as a second language would take the time extension, and why wouldn't they? Also, the right amount of time extension (15 minutes? an hour? two?) is impossible to know deterministically.
3. Allow the use of translators in the defense session.
ADVANTAGES: Allows people to defend in any language for whom a translator can be located.
DISADVANTAGES: Expensive. Difficult to administer procedurally: how would such a session be timed, especially if the translator were providing simultaneous translation? How could we know that the translator was not surreptitiously providing assistance to the candidate? How could we incentivize the translator to respect our confidentiality agreements?
4. Define a certain core set of languages (English being one of several) that were the official languages of the program for the foreseeable future.
ADVANTAGES: Deterministic; easy for candidates to understand and plan for.
DISADVANTAGES: Would require the immediate and aggressive recruitment of panelists in the designated new languages, and their permanent maintenance. Not a solution to the problem, but rather a permanent mitigation: speakers of languages not selected would remain at a disadvantage.
5. Define the program as requiring English.
ADVANTAGES: Deterministic; easy for candidates to understand and plan for. Inexpensive.
DISADVANTAGES: Contrary to VMware's stated intention to be a global company. Short-sighted: at risk of being swept into the dustbin of history as other languages supplant English's role as the lingua franca of IT.
++++
More options? Other advantages and disadvantages of the above? Your thoughts are welcome.
