Em Ter, 2006-12-05 às 12:06 +0100, Anselm Lingnau escreveu: > The LPI promised Alan to keep his certificate ACTIVE for 10 years, and they > have now unilaterally reduced that to 5. They promised to keep mine ACTIVE > forever (i.e., when I got it the ACTIVE/INACTIVE issue didn't even exist), > and have unilaterally reduced that to 5 years, too. I don't call > this »honouring an agreement« even if you do.
The problem goes even far, because nobody can now state that even this new rule will be honoured, as somebody put somewhere in the list. For instance, a new flag may be added to the database signalling if the two-year recommendation was followed or not. I apologize to give this hint. ;-) > What I do mind is constantly having to > justify and defend the most recent batch of weasel-wording from Canada to the > local alumni and prospective candidates with little or no advance warning. If the folks who are willing to take the exams happen to give up because of this, I think all of us, including LPI management, will feel the effects, as a decrease in the number of certifications issued by unit of time. I should also realize this might not happen, if e.g. the folks continue to take the exams as before, regardless of the recent changes. The question is how sensible these changes are for the newcomers to take the decision of getting certified by LPI, for other certification, or not to be certified. Of course there will be the old certified people getting again into the exams to be recertified, which will represent a new demand. Even so, I agree completely on Anselm about the lack of sense in breaking the rules without consulting the community. Luiz _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
