20th April 2009, 02:41 PM
Afarensis wrote:
'As a curator I would agree that the critical phrase here is "must be led by a member of the IFA or IHBC or EQUIVILANT'
We do not require that a company be led by a full member of the IFA (MIFA) just that the overall manager of the work (Project Manager) be of equivalent expertise, i.e. could be a MIFA if they wanted but chooses not to.'
I'm not at all sure about how this would work. Take the case of a non-MIFA applying to carry out the work and then being assessed by the curator as not being of 'equivalent' expertise and therefore not being allowed to continue.
The IFA criteria for MIFA status are clearly published and any application is assessed by the Validation Committee. There is also a Membership Appeals Committee that deals with cases where applicants feel that their case has not been properly dealt with.
What would be the curator's criteria for being of MIFA 'equivalent' expertise? Who actually assesses this? What is the appeal produre and who assesses any appeal?
The whole thing looks like a way of asking for everyone to be MIFA but with an 'equivalent' status thrown in to keep the anti-competition lawyers happy.
Beamo
'As a curator I would agree that the critical phrase here is "must be led by a member of the IFA or IHBC or EQUIVILANT'
We do not require that a company be led by a full member of the IFA (MIFA) just that the overall manager of the work (Project Manager) be of equivalent expertise, i.e. could be a MIFA if they wanted but chooses not to.'
I'm not at all sure about how this would work. Take the case of a non-MIFA applying to carry out the work and then being assessed by the curator as not being of 'equivalent' expertise and therefore not being allowed to continue.
The IFA criteria for MIFA status are clearly published and any application is assessed by the Validation Committee. There is also a Membership Appeals Committee that deals with cases where applicants feel that their case has not been properly dealt with.
What would be the curator's criteria for being of MIFA 'equivalent' expertise? Who actually assesses this? What is the appeal produre and who assesses any appeal?
The whole thing looks like a way of asking for everyone to be MIFA but with an 'equivalent' status thrown in to keep the anti-competition lawyers happy.
Beamo