Interim Order on Endorsement Archaeology
An endorsement was received for a skill not used in four years. The endorser had not worked with the recipient during the period when the skill was used.
Transcript: Endorsement Archaeology Interim Review Hearing Remote, Scheduled
CHAIR: What is the matter before us?
WITNESS: A professional endorsement was received for a software tool that was last used in 2017. The endorsement arrived on a Tuesday in July 2021. No professional contact had occurred with the endorser since approximately 2018.
CHAIR: Was the skill listed on the profile?
WITNESS: It was. It remained on the profile as a legacy entry. It was not removed because removal felt like an admission of obsolescence.
CHAIR: And the endorser?
WITNESS: A former colleague. We worked together for six months in 2016. During that period, the skill was not used in any project we shared. The skill was used in a separate project running concurrently. The endorser would not have observed its use.
CHAIR: Is the endorsement factually accurate?
WITNESS: This is where the archaeology becomes interesting. The skill was possessed. It was possessed in 2016. Whether it is currently possessed is unknown even to the recipient. The tool has changed substantially since 2017. The endorsement is for a state of the skill that existed at a time the endorser did not witness. It is not for the current state of the skill.
CHAIR: Did you accept the endorsement?
WITNESS: No action was taken. Accepting was not required. The endorsement simply appeared.
CHAIR: Was it accurate to leave it?
WITNESS: The platform treats an endorsement as evidence of a skill. It does not treat the absence of a working relationship as evidence against it. By the platform's standards, the endorsement is valid. By the standards of whether it accurately represents current capability or observed competency, it is neither.
CHAIR: Has anyone since contacted you about that skill?
WITNESS: Two years ago. I indicated I was no longer current with the tool. The inquiry ended.
CHAIR: Did you remove the skill after that inquiry?
WITNESS: I did not. I added a note indicating it was not current. The note was in the adjacent text field. The endorsement count did not change.
CHAIR: What happened after the 2021 endorsement?
WITNESS: The endorsement count for that skill went from three to four. I checked the skill description to see if it was still accurate. It was accurate in the way that something written in 2016 about a condition that existed in 2016 is accurate.
CHAIR: The endorsement is for a skill the endorser has not observed and the recipient no longer practices?
WITNESS: Yes.
CHAIR: And both parties find this satisfactory?
WITNESS: Neither party has expressed dissatisfaction. The endorsement was given in good faith. It was received without objection. The profile reflects it. The process worked as designed.
CHAIR: Interim order issued. Hearing adjourned.