Hi there, The situation was that the trainer who was organizing my participation had no idea of my experience with Linux (I've been using various different flavors of it since spring 93 - thanks kerry *grin*) and it was felt by him and RedHat in general that there was a pretty good chance I wouldn't pass the RHCE. The form was to cover their butts so that when i failed, I couldn't turn around and say that it was because RedHat put me at a disadvantage, Their attitude was that I shouldn't sit the RHCE until they got around to incorporating accessibility (ie speakup) into RedHat natively, whenever that might be. The satisfying thing was though, I not only passed, but I passed with 98% and beet both the instructors' marks. So the tables were somewhat turned in the end. Regards Aaron On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 11:40:38AM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote: > This sounds silly, of course. But, I don't quite understand. > > I think I understand the first part where you write, > "the provisions provided by Red Hat were of my own choosing." I would interpret this to mean something like, "you choose to take this test, so you choose what we offer > according to the terms we offer it." Circular and silly, of course. > > But, about the alternative arrangements, what was the alternative? I don't quite follow this. It seems there was no alternative, just the one option which perhaps RH > was saying put you at a disadvantage. Namely, that whoever wanted this signature realized you would have a tougher time than other candidates. But, is there some > meaning I'm missing about an "alternative?" > > Aaron Howell writes: > > From: Aaron Howell <aaron at kitten.net.au> > > > > Oh, and one more thing, > > They made me sign an agreement that > > "the provisions provided by Redhat were of my own chosing, > > and that it was RedHat's opinion that I may be putting myself at a disadvantage by choosing to use such alternative arrangements." > > That is, they gave me absolutely no choice, then made me agree that it was what I'd wanted all along. > > Regards > > Aaron > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 11:55:24PM -0400, Janina Sajka wrote: > > > Luke Davis writes: > > > > From: Luke Davis <ldavis at shellworld.net> > > > > > > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Janina Sajka wrote: > > > > > > > > > Luke Davis writes: > > > > > > False. > > > > > > > > > There is no evidence of any deliberation, nor of any decision. > > > > > > There is certainly evidence that special accomodations were not allowed. > > > I would certainly agree that they should haave been allowed. That would > > > constitute a reasonable accomodation and thus be more likely to equalize > > > the opportunity. But, that isn't the same as people sitting down to say > > > "let's stick it to this person." That's what "deliberately deny" means. > > > > > > Did they deny equal access? Arguably so, by virtue of not making > > > reasonable and appropriate accomodations. Was that a "deliberate > > > decision to deny?" Bull.. > > > > > > Ignorance and lack of consideration? Yes. "Deliberate decision to deny." > > > Hardly. > > > > > > Or, perhaps you're privvy to some smoking memo? Or the meeting agenda > > > where this deliberate decision was reached? > > > > > > So, thaat's one supposed fact in question. You did say "facts," as in > > > the plural. So, what else > > > > > > > > > > "I have not investigated, and do not intend to investigate, the facts he > > > > > listed." > > > > > > > > > > Facts? What facts? There were no "facts" in that post, just allegations. > > > > > Rather outrageous ones, too. > > > > > > > > Regarding: > > > > > > > > > Some will recall that Red Hat recently decided to deliberately deny > > > > > equal access to its training material as offered to those whom decide to > > > > > take their week-long RHCE training classes. Oh, well... > > > > > > > > Is this false? Did they, or did they not, make these inaccessible? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Speakup mailing list > > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Janina Sajka, Director > > > Technology Research and Development > > > Governmental Relations Group > > > American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) > > > > > > Email: janina at afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Speakup mailing list > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Speakup mailing list > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > -- > > Janina Sajka, Director > Technology Research and Development > Governmental Relations Group > American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) > > Email: janina at afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175 > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
