OK, so maybe we need an Agile 'Score'. From 10 as "I eat requirements and shit index cards", to 1 being "We got a guy in with a whiteboard once". The core tea

OK, so maybe we need an Agile 'Score'. From 10 as "I eat requirements and shit index cards", to 1 being "We got a guy in with a whiteboard once". The core team who define a concept get to vet the initial applications of the concept and give it a score. They also indicate who they think "Gets" the concept, and when those people are approved, they're publicly listed as "Getting it". Similar to the PGP system... A Trustee of yours is trusted by me. Except competance in lieu of identity. Basically, anyone can say "I give you a 10 out of 10 for hiring me as a coach I MEAN BEING AGILE", but only people elected by the community as a whole's opinions are likely to be respected. If Paul Graham said you were likely to succeed with a stup, that doesn't mean you WILL succeed, nor does it mean that everyone will agree with him, or even then those he doesn't believe in will fail. But if you trust his judgment given a set of parameters, you should be able to trust his recommendation. Maybe a simple rule: What does the certifier gain or lose from incorrectly certifying this entity? If the answer is gains money AND/OR loses credibility, don't trust the cert. This conflicts with the idea of a certification as a business, which kinda sucks because no-one wants to spend their time for free certifying people and businesses. Maybe a group of peers review, freely given and freely used. Everyone wanting a cert throws in a small amount of cash for pizza, you walk through your operations, the community takes note of who's there, then votes.