> I'll admit I am unsure how such individuals would be chosen. I imagine it would be prudent to learn what processes are used by other licensed professions when choosing such individuals.

Licensing organizations disproportionately attract people who enjoy "administrating" over "doing."

Other those who prioritize profits over providing good customer service.

People who enjoy administrating rarely think you’re the “customer” lol.

> I would hope that any regulation is evidence driven.

Have you found existing regulation in any field that's evidence-driven?

My impression is that regulation is not made in a way that has much to do with evidence, but I would be delighted to be shown evidence I'm wrong.

Aviation comes to mind. Most aviation regulations exist because people died.

It's hardly a perfect system, but the problem is mostly that it's too conservative and risk aware, making it difficult to impossible to innovate and ignoring the risk this creates. (The world's most popular light aircraft is the 1950s-vintage Cessna 172, mostly because it's impossibly slow and costly to get a reasonably priced modern competitor certified.)

Thank you for the data point. I guess I had overlooked that.

Have you never heard the adage that regulations are written in blood?

Plenty of regulations in many many fields are evidence based.

Sure, many are not.

But to make such a blanket statement is absurd.

What you have to remember is that the people who decide who to appoint into these roles are another step removed from the problem domain. They will have no programming experience, or the ability to evaluate programming experience. They will try and rely on metrics or some "data-driven" approach to deciding who to appoint.

What kind of data will they look towards? Here, we have a precedent from frantically points to absolutely everywhere around us. So the people with "engagement" and "reputation", i.e. they gushed on their blog and farmed engagement, will be exactly who gets appointed to make the decisions.