On Monday 04 December 2006 15:30, Anselm Lingnau wrote: > Scott Lamberton wrote: > > 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. > > When I took my last exam the retake policy still was »never, unless > the objectives have changed«, and they changed very rarely. Forgive > me for not checking back on this every other week :^)
[snip] > Now, from what I've seen so far in the various LPI-oriented forums > here in Germany, the feelings aired there concerning this policy > change are best described as outrage and disappointment. You, or more > precisely MY COLLEAGUES AND I out here in the boonies, are going to > have some serious convincing to do so that the punters may at some > stage believe that this change that you landed on us (and them) like > a ton of rocks is actually a good thing. If nothing else, we would > have appreciated *some* advance warning of this so we could have been > able to explain things better ON YOUR BEHALF, to these people who are > not just our customers but also YOURS, and part of this wonderful > »community« you're so proud of. I'm with Anselm on this. I also did not receive any advance notification of this impending change. And let's not make a mistake here, this isn't some minor procedural change, it's a fundamental aspect of the cert itself. In the same way as GPL2 to GPL3 is a whole whack more than just changed words in a file, it's simply not on to award someone essentially a perpetual certificate and then some years later announce that "Oh well, that's not true anymore". Why do you think the FSF has gone through a torturous year long input and review process for GPL3? Because dumping it on us suddenly as a fait accompli will provoke outrage. > We used to tell people »the LPI believes that Linux knowledge never > really goes out of date, so there's no recertification requirement«, > then we changed over to »the LPI still believes that Linux knowledge > never really goes out of date but they also really, really wanted to > be NOCA certified themselves so they put the period at 10 years > because that was the maximum NOCA would allow«, and now it's »Linux > moves so fast that LPI says you really should recertify after two > years but you have to after five if you want to stay ACTIVE«? What's > the party line going to be next year? Or, to put it even more > bluntly, if over time you acquire a reputation with your candidates > and alumni for rescinding on your previous promises (even with the > best of intentions, to be sure, and after lots of consultation with > major industry representatives, yadda yadda), then who is to say for > sure that next year LPI isn't going to do the »LPIP« thing that Bryan > suggested the other day? All for the good of »the community«, of > course! (I can see now how I would spin this if I had to.) I can understand what LPI wants to accomplish with this change. I can see that they have a point - heck, if I'd done an industry review and analysis myself, I would probably have recommended the very change that has taken place. But, I would most certainly not have done it and dropped it on the cert holders like a ton of bricks. Some basics: 1. LPI was created by Linux professionals for the benefit of Linux professionals. 2. LPI's sole and only valid purpose is to serve the needs of their *members* 3. Members are individual people Note that "industry" isn't in that list. "Major industry representatives" is a somewhat vague term.... it even smacks of a smokescreen. Who are these "representatives" of whom you speak, Scott? What are their names and which company do they represent? What procedure was followed to get their input? What exactly are the things they want? Scott, I really want you to answer these questions. You are leading me to believe that you know the answers with your statements about discussions with industry leaders, so I expect you to level with me on this. [snip] > However, if you claim to have consulted > »the community« on this and they said »great, this is what we've been > waiting for all along«, pardon me for wondering exactly *who* you did > ask, as I've yet to talk to anybody hereabouts who thinks this is > anything less than outrageous, not because of the number of years but > mostly because of the retroactiveness. It would appear that LPI did not consult with their members on this. No-one here has mentioned being consulted, or receiving an opinion poll to fill in, or being invited to a discussion on recertification. Considering that LPIs is answerable only to their members and to no-one else, I find this most odd. Scott, I think you have just walked into a stupendous PR goof, and are in danger of annoying LPI's members. How could LPI possibly have considered that they could implement a deep fundamental change like this without discussing it with the members first? So I'll repeat what I said in my first mail in this thread: I passed a series of exams and as a result LPI awarded me a cert that is valid for 10 years. And damnit, I insist that LPI honour that agreement to the full. alan _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
