It is only questionable as to why one would not be better advised to take advantage of over 30 years of development already done. Over all these valuable years a great deal has been learned about what works and what doesn't. After thirty plus years some of us have learned that such individuals should not be on the final decision making body but rather on an advisory panel. Because in spite of their expert opinions and their best of intentions, they cannot, from their unique positions, fully understand the perspective of the practitioner in the core profession. This was not evident to those involved 16 years into the CFP development when the BOG was formed in 1985 and apparently is not evident to John's group at this time.
History does benefit when available.
Why ignore it and relive the whole thing to simply arrive at the same, inevitable, conclusion. It would seem to be more beneficial to take advantage of such history and correct the error now rather than another thirty years from now. It is now evident that that doesn't work, witness CFP Lite, CFP practitioner, complimentary designations to friends of the BOG, lies and misrepresentations to facilitate BOG snow jobs for bad programs they couldn't justify except in the minds of consultants and board members who, because they had never earned the designation, did not appreciate the damage they were doing. We are well on the way to something great. The majority of the public has already bought in, assuming rightly or no that CFP is an identifier of choice when seeking FP assistance.