Anselm Lingnau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > True. But I don't trust HR people to draw fine distinctions of that > kind.
Show HR the LPIC logo. They are happy. Done.| Now for the hiring manager or lead, _he/she_ will care. Win-win in my book. As long as LPI allows use of the logo for even INACTIVE LPIC Alumni, it works _perfectly_. In fact, the "problem" with most, _other_ programs is that the vendor retracts your right to use the logo after 2-3 years. I hope LPI understands this. HR departments do _not_ care. They want to see the pretty logo. But peer technologists do. Win-win. Win for employers. Win for peer professionals who update (and just don't "sit" on LPIC-1). And still a "win" for those people who _do_ "sit" on their LPIC-1 just to have the pretty logo for HR. > Here is where Matthew's idea of having work experience, etc., > count towards recertification comes into play. Who cares > whether you have read> the textbook if you have *written* it! :^) And who is going to *PAY* for this? Really?!?!?! Lab-based certs and peer-reviewed resumes and countless other "processes" _cost_money_. So, again, how do you expect LPI to *PAY* for all these "wants"? I wrote my new blog article *NOT* to "give my opinion" (although I do some of that at the end). It is to get people to *STOP* and *REALIZE* why LPI is just *DIFFERENT*! ;-> http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2006/12/lpi-reiterates-and-updates.html To "pay" for all of what your "wants," LPI would either have to massively jack up the exam prices -- or *WORSE* yet -- give into the "training profit model." You want to see LPI _destroy_ its objectivity overnight? Have them go that latter route. ;-> > Anyway, IMHO, so far the LPI executive has seen fit to tick off > many LPI candidates and alumni. If on top of that they want to > insult all the LPI *volunteers*, too, then they should go right > ahead and set your certificate to INACTIVE in 2008. And given the ... A) Amount of ignorance into how LPI is *DIFFERENT*, especially its cash flows ... and ... B) The amount of rhetoric I have seen in this thread, with people not stopping to care about the facts, let alone the _real_, _professional_ reasons, are drowning out _legitimate_ comments and complaints (like those from Evan) So do you really think other _peers_ involved with LPI care what people of A & B think? Again, I _do_ *AGREE* that at least the Alumni list should have been consulted _before_ this happened. But honestly, some of you guys are just full of rhetoric that is _counter_ productive. -- 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
