On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 01:29 +0100, Anselm Lingnau wrote: > In Cologne, Matthew Rice talked at length about the two »core« exams for > LPIC-3, and how they were going to add four different »speciality« exams in > due course. A candidate would be expected to pass the LDAP-and-PAM and the > Samba exam to be LPIC-3 certified, and could then add specialities such as > security, Apache, mail, etc. as desired. There was a half-joke around about > how someone with all six certifications would be known as a »LPIC-3 Master > Specialist« or some such. > Had the new recertification policy been announced in time for that meeting, I > would certainly have made a point of asking whether LPI expected such an > individual to re-take all six exams every five years, or whether it would be > enough to start out with two and take one additional »speciality« exam every > five years to keep all the rest ACTIVE.
If you re-read the original announcement from LPI, I think you have your answer. ;-> > I'm absolutely impressed with the amount of work that has gone into LPIC-3. > There have been so many rumours about LPIC-3 during the years that I've been > involved with LPI that it is good to see us moving forward on this > eventually. I have a nagging suspicion that, considering that the ratio of > LPIC-1 candidates to LPIC-2 candidates is approximately 10:1 (at least here > in Germany), and stipulating that the ratio of LPIC-2 candidates to LPIC-3 > candidates is about the same at most, the work required to support a couple > of hundred candidates a year might be more profitably invested elsewhere > within the LPI world but hey! this is still something of a community project, > so if there are people willing to do the work then by all means let them. The "specialization" idea should drive a change there. It also, and quite nicely, solves the re-certification issue. > Incidentally, Debian, which as a software project is run more along > meritocracy lines than Fedora I disagree. I've seen a perfectly outstanding gentlemen who was a _major_ contributor _rejected_ because someone else was "personal" and not "professional." It's a Democracy, and it doesn't always work. And I said Fedora is _not_ a Meritocracy, but a Meritocracy + Executive. That is far more like LPI than Debian -- except Red Hat is for-profit. > and which, like LPI, *is* an organized entity > with fiscal aspects, has, as you're undoubtedly aware, dealt with this > problem by off-loading most of the fiscal aspects to a non-profit corporation > called Software in the Public Interest, Inc. Sensibly, SPI does *not* have > veto power about what happens within Debian -- the technical decisions rest > with the »meritocracy« within the project. SPI just hangs on to the money on > Debian's behalf. As far as Debian is concerned this arrangement appears to > work reasonably well. SPI is nearly separate. There are also other aspects to it. > There is no compelling reason why LPI could not be organized more along these > lines as well, if there was more emphasis on volunteer participation rather > than running the certification side of things as a quasi-business. We even > have the non-profit set up already! This would basically make Jim Lacey's job > that of a »project leader« elected by those »LPI volunteers« who, like Debian > developers, have shown a certain level of commitment and participation over a > certain period of time. The problem is that LPI was _not_ moving forward with LPIC-3 and other things in that "old design." Indeed one could argue how long it takes things to be integrated in Debian v. Fedora. I'm not saying that Fedora is "better." I'm quite a fan of Debian Stable myself. But new, Debian-based projects like Ubuntu are "catching on" because of the rate in which Debian moves. Which is why I said I prefer, from an "overall" standpoint, the Meritocracy + Executive approach. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance mailto:[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
