My apologies, I guess I misunderstood the purpose of the exercise. I realize and recognize that surveys are the means of validating such testing objectives.
Mark Lachniet [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Jang wrote: >Dear Tom, > >I don't have access to the survey that was done for this exam, so I have no >way to judge Mark's suggestions against the "broad census of active >sysadmins." Do you have this information? > >In addition, I've checked against item 204 (advanced hardware objectives) >and find no overlap with Mark's suggestions. While I'm not convinced that we >should add these objectives, many of them are just a bit more advanced than >what I've observed on the Linux+ exam (which is supposed to be one step >below LPIC-1). > >Thanks, >Michael Jang >----- Original Message ----- > >>There is more to it: >> >>- This looks like things are to be included because a few persons think it >>is a good idea. This is not how we are supposed to build our >>program: things are included because a broad census of active sysadmins >>rated certain tasks as relevant to perform a certain job. >> So is all this based on actual scored tasks from a survey? Or at least >>on a consensus on tasks from people on this mailing list? >> >>- Some of this seems somewhat advanced. Please double-check with the >>Level 2 objectives, and do not include stuff that is covered at the higher >>level, because then it apparently is inappropriate for Level 1. >> > >-- >This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list. >Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >to leave the list. > -- This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list. Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to leave the list.
