I disagree. Knowing the details of an apprenticeship program upfront are critical to attract and retain both the "apprentices" and the "masters" necessary to make a program work. It would be unfair to both groups to have divergent programs and skill levels being passed off as apprenticeships.

There are plenty of successful models that a program could be based on. In the US, electricians require 5 years of work with a journeyman + classroom instruction. Professional Engineers require a degree in their discipline, 2 examinations, and 4 years of relevant experience, usually under a licensed engineer before they can get their PE license (its not called an apprenticeship, but an EIT - Engineer-in-Training. You are expected to learn from a more experienced engineer who is responsible for overseeing your work and providing a recommendation before you are licensed).

Agreed. All we have is a vague title, and that's by design.

The last thing we need is folks going to their dictionaries and starting to create or use formal definitions for all of this. That kind of rigidity is what got us here in the first place.

Much better to adopt a general definition consisting of "in situ" and "rapid feedback" and then try a million experiments to see what gains traction. Theory is easy. Application is difficult. We need much more application and much less theory.