In general, I think restarting after a JTA is probably an appropriate
time. Right now, I think we'd be better to start with x20 series topics
because of the existing confusion levels. I don't see a need to bump a
topic to a new number for minor things like typos or even very small
changes in objectives. I do think the addition of new subtopics,
significant reorganization of content, moving content from one objective
to another, and changes in weights are the kind of things that would
trigger me to think we might need a new topic number. If you can go to my
tutorials, or someone else's tutorials, or someone's book or study
materials and determine quickly whether they come close to matching the
current objectives, then I think we've succeeded. When you pick up such
material and find that stuff isn't where you'd expect it or it's missing
more than a pretty small amount of stuff, then we haven't accomplished
what I'd like to see.
Ian Shields Ph.D.
Linux Technologist, ISV & Developer Relations
IBM Corp
Research Triangle Park, NC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/04/2008 12:23:23 PM:
> G. Matthew Rice said the following on 04.02.2008 18:06:
> > Ian Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> topic numbers (say topic 115). For the current exercise, which
involves a
> >> substantial reswizzle of objectives, maybe just use topic 121, 122,
123,
> >> etc. instead of reusing any existing topic numbers.
> >>
> >> I still think the exam version needs to be exposed in the
description, but
> >> I htink adding it explicitly into the topic numbering might be going
too
> >> far.
> >
> > I like the idea of just bumping up the objective numbers. The 214
> > duplication predates my participation with LPI exam development but my
guess
> > is that this happened due to an objective shuffle/split in the early
years
> > (just like the weird progression of LPIC-1 objectives).
> >
> > Unless someone comes up with a better numbering mechanism, I'm going
to:
> >
> > a) make the version of the objectives 2.0 (the point 0 meaning
> first revision
> > of the new objectives).
> > b) start the objective numbering at 120.1 for LPIC-1 and 220.1 for
LPIC-2.
>
> I like that idea, too. Couldn't we define that we change back and number
> from 100.1 / 200.1 the next JTA? If we keep adding 10 each time we renew
> the objectives we will run out of range ;-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Taki
> --
> Dimitrios Bogiatzoules Product Developer
> LPIC-2 Linux Professional Institute
> GnuPG Key ID A7E4D183 http://www.lpi.org
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lpi-german.de
>
> [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Ian Shields/Raleigh/IBM]
> _______________________________________________
> lpi-examdev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
