Chuck Mead wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Tom Pilsch spewed into the bitstream:
> <snipped some very good points which merit thought>
> > Bottom Line:  We need to ask ourselves why we are taking this journey.  Are
> > we trying to establish a noncommercial standard to enhance the acceptable
> > of Linux as a mainstream operating system and thereby have a major positive
> > impact on our industry, or are we trying to establish a revenue stream?
> The former, obviously, but it appears at this point that we cannot sustain the
> the one without the other. Unless someone can see a way to do it that we haven't
> yet thought of, and that may well be the best result to this discussion.

Hmmm...I'm not yet convinced that vendor demand is a sufficient reason
to enter this market, nor am I convinced that we're going to need the
"approved courseware," etc revenue streams to support operations.  I was
under the impression that we're going to price the exam to cover
operating expenses for design and distribution.  The idea that Tom
(Pilsch) indicated sounds like a plan more in line with the original
intent of LPI, IIRC.  IOW, we make the tests, publish the standards (not
the questions, et. al.) and let the vendors sort it out.  (market
economics at work y'know?)

As to Tom and John's questions about a business plan and finances:  We
do have a detailed budget and cost estimate for publishing our first
series of tests, but haven't yet released it for public consumption. 
This isn't the result of malice, but more a result of the fact that the
SC has been really busy.  Chuck has already brought this issue up on the
SC list in response to your inquiries and I'll let everyone know what
our plans are after the meeting tonight. 

AFAIK, we don't have a formally defined "business plan," but I'm still
an SC newbie, so I'll be sure to ask tonight.  The second revision of
the contract with VUE is with our lawyer(s) at the moment.


This message was sent by the linux-cert-corprel mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to