Okay, instead of going back and forth, I'm just going to point it out in a "top-post" (followed by select "bottom posts" from other posts as appropriate).
There are *2* issues involved in this discussion ... 1. There was a certification change at all, and 2. Neither the Discuss nor Alumni list was consulted _beforehand_ Regarding #1, I've already made my viewpoints known. I don't have an issue with the change itself, and see some positives. About the only other suggestion for #1 I could make is that LPI should have _waited_ to announce the change _until_ LPIC-3 or any specialties were available. Either that _or_ LPI should have stated the recertification policy was now "5 years from today" or "As of 2012 Jan 01, all holders of certifications from 2006 or earlier will be considered Inactive" for existing holders, as another 5 years would be a good time period for the development of the final LPIC-3 track, any specialities, etc... E.g., someone who passed the LPIC-2 track in late 2001/early 2002 has _no_option_ to recertify except take the 201/202 exams over. ;-> Regarding #2, I have to agree with other people here, especially Evan. Not soliciting the Discuss, or at least the Alumni, list _prior_ to the decision was an _unwise_ move. It results in some of the comments we've seen -- a "hidden boardroom" making all sorts of "proprietary" decisions. While I don't agree with that demonization, I can say discussing things "in the open" before you make the decision goes a _long_way_ towards putting the community "at ease." At the same time, while I wasn't in Germany, if this _indeed_ came up in a TAC or other committee -- that's "good enough" for me because it's at these TAC/committees where _real_people_ who have a "stake" in the process show up. In any case, at least talking about it on the list _beforehand_ qualms some of the nay-sayers. You'll still have some in the end, but you'll find more proponents as they were consulted beforehand. If anything, talking to the community would have raised the fact that there are current LPIC-2 holders from late 2001/early 2002 that will have to retake their 201/202 exams shortly just to recertify. That's not good IMPO, and I would have recommend we consider a "5 years from now" or "2012 Jan 01" as the "hard date" to recertify. But that's just my, now Ex Post Facto, suggestion. ;-> - Now regarding LPI's "direction" ... As an "outsider," I'll try say this unbiasedly as possible. Everyone should understand that the LPI leaderhsip and organization has changed over the past year or two. While I have nothing but good things to say about those who "got the process rolling" in the first 5-6 years -- from the founders and original leaders like Evan to the Pritchards to countless other volunteers, it was inevitable that LPI would gain enough "business mindshare" that industry factors would reshape it. This is required to keep the LPI organization moving forward, especially with all the additional and expedited developments that were always going to occur. The community is large enough that we can't always do everything in a "Democracy," and it's turning into more of a combation of "Meritocracy" combined with "Executive Leadership." Democracies are great, but they aren't always efficient -- and sometimes can be defeating. "Meritocracies" are definitely "put up or shut up" and you can be certain that with individuals like Matt running the exam development, he's definitely a "put up" type of guy. At the same time, you have to have "Executive Leadership" that finally "makes a decision" or otherwise things don't move forward -- and can (and often does) drop into a mode of "tit4tat" style rhetoric and political arguments. As long as that "Executive Leadership" consults the community, it works (and I'll let others argue whether or not this happened). With that all said, I haven't really "put up" anything (really haven't had any time due to consulting work since the April committees in Boston), so I tend to "shut up" other than to point out these simple realities. I still owe Matt countless hours I offered, but haven't fulfilled. - Democracy v. Meritocracy+Executive This is not the first time such an "organization" has been debated. The Debian Project clearly uses a _huge_ Democracy and The Fedora Project uses a 9-member Executive council comprised of a 4-member Meritocracy plus a 5-member "veto power" Red Hat representation. I am a huge proponent of not only Debian, not only being a past maintainer, but I also respect Ian Murdock and people in his Progeny organization like Ransom Love who are pushing forth the DCC and commercial developments. Buy to date, most of the business world definitely favors the Fedora approach and style and resulting Enterprise Linux from Red Hat. At the same time, the resulting Fedora Project is more open and more community-centric, especially the Fedora Extras approach which is now becoming the default, public build system for Fedora Complete 7 (no more "Core/Extras" separation). Which is better? I'm not going to argue either way -- especially I could say a lot of things I prefer about Debian over Fedora. But from the standpoint of moving a project forward faster and balancing the needs of most business against community interests, the Fedora Project's Meritocracy+Executive definitely balances the two better -- IMPO. Which is why I don't "fear" or demonize the recent LPI moves as "proprietary" any more than I did the Fedora change. If anything, we're going to get _better_ results for the community, even though there is clear business decisions being made. As long as they are not made "behind the scenes," the Meritocracy+Executive approach is _very_efficient_. Now for the bottom posts ... Luiz Ramos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First of all, I have high respect about your opinions. I read a lot > of your postings to this list before, and I know you have strong > positions about Linux and FOSS. Yes, I am extremely opinionated. I don't work for LPI, Novell, Red Hat and other companies, so I try to limit my "bias." I do, however, have to declare that I make over 80% of my earnings by developing, deploying and integrating on, with or for Red Hat-based solutions. Luiz Ramos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am replying privately, as I don't know if this > discussion can annoy some readers of the list. Unfortunately, the "TO:" went to the list. ;-> Luiz Ramos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe I've been misunderstood ... cut ... > My interpretation was based on the fact that the decision > to change the recertification policy didn't involve some key > stakeholders. One of them is ourselves ... I addressed that above (agreeing with you on several points). Luiz Ramos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Again, you deserve my respect, even I may not agree with you > in all issues. Nah, no respect necessary. After all, my initials are "BS." ;-> Anselm Lingnau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 also covered this above. I have to agree that _at_least_ the Alumni list should have been consulted at some point _prior_, just to quell the "fall out" that would occur and gain some "mindshare" from the Alumni before finally making an "Executive Decision." Anselm Lingnau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right. I was present at that meeting, as was a whole zoo of LPI > luminaries, many of whom are also subscribing to this list. Of > course as that meeting was supposed be a *technical* meeting, any > mention of upcoming changes to existing policy would have been > outside its purview, thus didn't take place :^). It didn't occur > to us to ask, so this may have been our fault. At the 2006 April Boston LinuxWorld, there were 2 committees. One was a non-technical advisory where such things would/should have been discussed, and another technical advisory where the LPIC-3 and other exam developments were covered. For more on the 2006 April LinuxWorld, see the second 2/3rds of my Blog post: http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2006/04/business-of-linuxworld.html -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://thebs413.blogspot.com -------------------------------------------------- Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
