I do not even see what the problem here is, What is so hard in having a
membership based organization (who’s membership is open to all) regulating
policy, where members then can openly discuss, define, and review :
a) What strengths we have as a nation on the ICT front,
b) What opportunities exist and how we can leverage this for the greater
c) How we should behave so our status professionally keeps rising.
Why should some people somewhere earn dollars to sit in expensive
committees to come up with a classroom style definition of what an ICT
professional is, and then spend even more money stopping people from
exploiting their creativity.
I do not know what the motivations for this bill are, The only point of
reference we have are the first one, I would still look at it suspiciously,
especially the urgency with which it is being reintroduced, period!
Why not present the gaps as they are and we just focus on filling the gaps.
The one thing that differentiated how Britain’s Industrial revolution was
by magnitudes far more successful than France, is that one had an open
policy to innovation, anyone could be listened to and the default challenge
was always “Prove it”, In the other, Before you showed up before schooled
men & women, you had to prove you are qualified to even set foot on stage.
Names like John Kay, Richard Arkwright, James Watt and Stephenson would not
exist today, in a worldview that seeks to strangle innovation.
Tel: +*254 707 750 788 */ *0731750788*
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Victor Kapiyo via kictanet <