On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think that the two criteria should be (1) exam security and (2) change
> in content. I can tell you that the books I bought a year or 18 months
> ago (which were written six to 18 months previously) are definitely stale.
> I think Linux is currently changing sufficiently in a year or two to make
> new exams a good idea.
Scott mentioned similar things in the mother thread. So I think it is
worthwhile to consider these things separately:
1) Change an exam (partially or in whole) to improve quality and keep
secrecy. This is an internal, technical matter: the exam is (should be)
fully equivalent to its pre-decessor. Specifically, it does not need to
concern examinees, and they do not need to re-certify. These should be
"minor-number" upgrades.
2) Change in exam content. This will be because the exam objectives have
changed, which will be because Linux has evolved. The old exam is
obsoleted, we get a new major number. After "sufficient" changes have
accumulated, people may have to re-certify.
Now we need to set a policy about how much "sufficient" is. One upgrade
is not sufficient, or everybody who took the old exam yesterday will cry
out for our blood. And we don't want everybody to wait for the new exam
either, because it surely will be behind schedule as usual, and we will go
broke because of lack of revenues. The same thing happened to Osborne way
back in the stone age.
--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@*^@)
Tom "thriving on chaos" Peters
NL-1062 KD nr 149 tel. 31-204080204
Amsterdam e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
