Anselm Lingnau wrote: >Scott Lamberton wrote: > > > >>All of this should be discernable from the policy. However one needs to >>read past the first sentence ;-) >> >> > >The recertificaton policy does not talk about the mechanics of re-takes. When >I took my LPIC-1 exam the stated policy was that re-takes weren't allowed >unless the objectives had been changed in the meantime; the change of *that* >policy must somehow have slipped by me (my bad). > > Our recertification policy was last revised in April 2004. However, I believe the change around retakes was made much earlier -- I'll have to make inquiries. Every time one takes an exam the retake policy is sent out with the results. As well, the retake policy is noted on the candidate area page.
>More importantly, I am, like Evan, surprised that the issue underlying the >recent recertification interval policy change had apparently never been >raised on this list before the actual change was promulgated. I used to be >under the impression that this list was a venue where ideas like this could >be floated *before* an actual policy change, and input from »the LPI >community« be solicited. Now it seems that, for whatever reason, the LPI does >not consider the readership of this list a part of »the LPI community« to an >extent where our input regarding the issue would have been welcome (because >otherwise it would have been very appropriate to ask the readers of >[email protected] for their thoughts on the matter -- this, unless I'm very >uch mistaken, is what this list purports to be *for*).If anything, this is a >more disturbing development than whatever you could do >to the recertification timespan, and I would strongly urge you to either >officially declare this list as being provided purely for entertainment >purposes, or reconsider your methods for handling future prospective policy >changes such that you make more explicit use of this very valuable channel >into »the LPI community«. Alternatively, if there is *another* list that one >must join where one's contributions might actually to some degree make a >difference regarding issues such as this, before the fact, I'd love to hear >about that as well. > >Anselm > >(This is my personal opinion and not that of Linup Front GmbH.) > > It is unfortunate that you feel this way. This list will ALWAYS be an important venue to solicit community input. It still is. However, there are many venues where input into LPI policy and procedures is sought. These include the Strategic Advisory Council, the Technical Advisory Council (which as you know recently had a public meeting in Germany at LW Cologne), affiliate meetings, and consultations with individual candidates and industry representatives. This mailing list is not the SOLE means LPI consults with its stakeholders. Finally, the creation of LPI policy is the responsibility of the LPI Board of Directors. There are many instances that any Board of Directors of any organization may choose to limit their consultations--including that other forms of consultation were overwhelmingly positive. I invite you to re-read the points raised by Bryan Smith on this list--I have received numerous private correspondences from individuals who recognize the merits of this policy but for a variety of reasons prefer not to participate in public forums. Nevertheless, please be assured that the points raised on this list on this issue will be brought to the attention of LPI staff and management. Thanks for your input. scott -- Scott Lamberton Director of Communications Linux Professional Institute Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.lpi.org Telephone: +1-416-666-1574
_______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
