On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Bryan J Smith <b.j.sm...@ieee.org> wrote: >> So, any ideas on how we could manage objective numbering in the future? > > Enumeration is always going to be an issue.
I think that's the general consensus from everyone I spoke with about this recently. It may be that things can settle down a little after this revision. I noticed that I didn't have to do much renumbering for the LPIC-2 objectives (although, I had to put capplanning up to 200 so it would fit into the 201 exam). The 300 exam and a lot of the borrowed objectives from 301/302 is a much different story. The only negative is potentially creating gaps in the objective numberings (unlike bylaws which never seem to go away; just added to, we could retired/merge complete objectives on a future revision). Regards, -- G. Matthew Rice <mr...@lpi.org> gpg id: EF9AAD20 _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
