replace exception rule by Incubator status

[depressiveRobot]

Resolves #1024

There are still some open questions:

• How to allow implementation partners that don't want to offer an own public environment (criteria c) to get a certification?
  • current idea is v3 of the procedural (or a new procedural) which introduces another stage of certification, like "Certified SCS Engineer/Consultant/Trainer"
• How do we want to handle joint references? (e.g. two or more partners have jointly set up SCS environments or manage them together)
• How to prove that the environment is not "scripted only"?
  • maybe some kind of plausibility checks and statistics (customers, applications, workloads, stress tests etc.)

Show differences between v1 and v2:

Procedural:

git diff --no-index Standards/scs-0007-v1-certification-integrators.md Standards/scs-0007-v2-certification-integrators.md

Supplement:

git diff --no-index Standards/scs-0007-w1-certification-integrators-implementation-notes.md Standards/scs-0007-w2-certification-integrators-implementation-notes.md

[mbuechse]

In my mind, the Incubator status needs to be implemented differently, namely, as a dedicated kind of certificate (maybe two, one for each layer), to be listed in the Section "Certificates".

Also and probably independent of my previous point, I think the Section "Criteria" should be rephrased. Something along the lines of:

The partner should achieve at least two points (for Integrator) or one point (for Apprentice) according to the following system:

• one point for each SCS-compliant environment of a third party successfully brought into production in the last 12 months, where the environment must fulfill at least ...
• one point for each SCS-compliant environment of a third party actively being managed by the applicant,
• etc. pp

This way, we can allow a mixture of what is currently a, b, and c.

[fkr]

Very good point. I always had in mind that is a separate Certificate, in order not to add to any confusion. I like the idea with the points.

[fkr]

In addition to @mbuechse 's comment: With the points we get rid of the voting, since I see the voting as one of the primary culprits of the original proposal as well. The decision should lie in the attestation body and with the proposed variant upon points, this would work nicely.