Anselm Lingnau wrote: > Scott Lamberton wrote: > > >> PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS EXAM CONTENT DETAILS ON THIS LIST! >> >> Infractions of this policy will have you, at the very least, barred from >> posting to this list. >> > > Which would be particularly silly/deplorable in this specific case as many of > the issues Mr Steudten is complaining about will become moot next Wednesday, > anyway. If he'd just delayed his exam for a single *week* he would presumably > have seen quite a different picture, and there isn't much sense in engaging > in a round of LPI bashing just now. > Exactly. > Anyway, »exam content details«? Sheesh. I don't think there is anything in Mr > Steudten's post that isn't also part of the published objectives. Debatable. > It's not as > if he had posted a brain-dump of his exam or anything. If we're not allowed > to mention even the content of the *published* objectives on this list, what > do you propose to do about the lpi-examdev list, which is specifically > *meant* for discussing (future) exam content, and where of course published > and possible future exam objectives come up all the time? Will you want that > list to be moderated, too? > It would appear to me that specific exam content was noted. Others than myself in LPI make that final determination. The difference is in the type of list. LPI-discuss is open to the public. Subscriptions to lpi-examdev are "approved" by the exam development team. That is their list. As they monitor this on a daily basis they are in a much better postion to discipline infractions. The debatable point here is what is discussion about exam objectives and specific exam items. > Anselm > > PS. His second message suggests that there is also a slight problem as far as > communicating the fact that the exam objectives will change on 1 April > is concerned. This is arguably the #1 top important issue of note to > 95% of LPI's clientele these days, so there would certainly seem to be > some justification for posting a huge and obvious banner to that effect on > the LPI home page, rather than camouflaging the announcement among a > bunch of other, comparatively insignificant, press releases advertised in > 3-pt type in the middle of the page. You presume a level of attentiveness > and reading comprehension of corporatese English on the part of LPIC-1/2 > candidates that may or may not actually be there, where I'd much rather > see something to the effect of > > HEY FOLKS, THE CONTENT OF THE LPIC-1/2 EXAMS WILL CHANGE ON APRIL 1ST!!! > > in large, friendly letters across the top of the page, on the off-chance. > With the current arrangement, it's a good thing you didn't manage to > announce two more seminars or master affiliates or else the new-objectives > announcement might have scrolled off the home page completely. Just trying > to be helpful ... > "Camouflaging"....hmmm...I guess that email sent to every single LPI registrant in November/December wasn't obvious enough. "Corporatese English"....hmmm.... or clear enough. Or the announcements to the media. Or the work of the affiliates, training partners and everyone else involved. Please, Anselm, I answer emails at [email protected] you have any idea how many people will take as "fact" some third-party obscure website rather than even look at our home page?
Never mind--there will be more stuff coming out next week. scott -- Scott Lamberton Director of Communications Linux Professional Institute [email protected] +1-905-269-0862 _______________________________________________ lpi-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-discuss
