I started to write a (typical) long-winded reply/proposal about scope and what it means to be "advanced" as a Linux sysadmin... Because I think that being able to distinguish L1 from L2 from L3 is the main sticking point. People are obviously eager to submit tasks for a L2 job analysis and then we can get the job content outlined. (So, to be clear, we need a "job" before we can analyze it--the process will tell us what the respondents do and what's important, but we need to be able to include the right respondents so we need to define the levels beforehand.) So, then before I finished, I thought to check the LPI site and there (http://www.lpi.org/c-process.html) is a nice capsule description of the levels and what makes them different. So going back to Kara's original post, what is the point of the more lengthy job description? Is everyone still happy with L2 being defined as: Administers a small to medium-sized site: can plan, implement, maintain, keep consistent, secure, and troubleshoot a small mixed (MS, Linux) network: LAN server (samba), Internet Gateway (firewall, proxy, mail, news), Internet Server (webserver, simple CGI?); Supervises 0 to some assistants; Advises management on automation and purchases Shall we get started with the job analysis? Do we need to embellish the above description? Do we need to make it easier for people to self-select their level by making a list of distinguishing features? IIRC, Kara's post included a description that was lengthier and included some points not raised above but also contained a lot of statements that (typical in job descriptions) conveyed only generalities. -Alan Mead -- This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list. Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to leave the list.
