On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, daan wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Jonathon Coombes wrote:
>
> JC:>"A.R. (Tom) Peters" wrote:
%< my comments have disappeared from the quotes >%
> JC:>It seems that there is some differences between level III being
> JC:>"enterprise" administration or "specialised" fields. Is it possible
> JC:>to make it currently as stands with specialised exams for different
> JC:>fields of expertise, but combined a number of them (say 50%?) of
> JC:>them into an level IV for enteprise recognition? It seems that most
> JC:>people agree that much of the specialised topics are used at an
> JC:>enterprise level of administration. Any comments?
Yes, it is an option that has been brought up before.
> So you mean?: an enterprise level sysadmin be very good (better then
> advanced) *and* have some specialized skills. The practice on level 1,
> two general and one specialized exam, can be repeated here in some
> form.
>
> If you do, I agree. Level four could then mean deepening the
> specialized skills and/or extending into more fields. At Snow it is
> our opinion that a senior sysadmin distinguishes herself by being able
> to acquire more specialties easely.
Daan,
If I understand correctly you want to insert a general Level 3 for
senior (enterprise-level) sysadmins, and then have a level 4 for expert
specializations: but this is what we had in mind for Level 3. Is there
any value in making another advanced general level? Already we have
discussions about topics if they should go into Level 2, or are too
specialized that most people won't need them so they shouldn't be part of
the general level(s).
Please note that for obtaining Level 3 certification we would require
any two specialization exams, but you can take extra exams if you like to
get endorsements.
I already explained the background of our current model (briefly
described in http://www.lpi.org/c-process.html) in my original post. If
we would need another (general) Level 3 certification, please address the
arguments and put forth some good reasons, preferably with real-world
data, why it should change. However, I think we should be concentrating
on Level 2 for now.
--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@*^@)
Tom "thriving on chaos" Peters
NL-1062 KD nr 149 tel. +31-204080204
Amsterdam e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list.
Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
to leave the list.
