Perhaps this little tidbit has some relevance, perhaps not. While I am
not part of the LPIC-3 development process and don't attend the events
where Advisory Council meetings would take place, I can offer perhaps a
tiny bit of historical perspective.

In the original three-level boilerplate that Dan and I had created back
in late '98, we envisioned that Level 3 would be very much a matter of
specialization, rather than just get deeper into things already covered
in Levels 1 and 2.

We looked at the university model, and noted that most programs have
many common compulsory courses in early years, but more electives deeper
into the program. In some cases, two people getting the same degree
might not have *anything* in common in their final year; the common
elements were at the lower levels and the general depth of telent
required to pass the senior-level courses.

To that end, the original LPIC-3 roadmap indicated no electives, but a
menu of three or more third-level exams from which one would choose.
Passing any two of these would entitle one to an LPIC-3 designation; it
was suggested that passing three or more might lead to some kind of
"Master LPIC-3" designation. Later on, some such as Maddog offered that
candidates who chose to pass only one L3 exam could still be
acknowledged in the database as having taken a specialty (ie, "LPIC-1 +
302"), though the difficulty of implementing this was never thought out.

In the original roadmap we envisioned a Level 3 exam that we called
"Integration". While centralized on Samba, it would also test skill in
technologies such as NFS, NIS, LDAP; today one might suggest adding and
stuff like Xen or Wine. The idea is that this exam would qualify people
who wanted to demonstrate the specialized skills necessary to make Linux
play nice in a mixed-OS environment. At the time we didn't think Samba
merited a single exam all its own.

Maybe this has been all considered; I hope it's useful.

- Evan

_______________________________________________
lpi-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss

Reply via email to