LPI suggestions

Ross E. Brunson ross at brunson.org
Mon Jun 30 11:26:09 EDT 2003


> 1) Regarding a chart, I can understand why some people might want one 
> but I think it would be a bad idea for LPI itself to make one. As one 
of 
> the certifications on the list we're being asked to make, we would 
> certainly be accused of bias no matter how fair we try to be. IOW, 
this 
> is something that perhaps an independent journalist might do as a 
> service, but LPI is one of the "sides" and it would be very hard for 
> *us** to make a chart that RedHat and CompTIA would agree to. Then 
> before you know it they're doing their own charts and we're all in the 
mud. 

Well said, and I understand why it's not a good idea for LPI to make 
one.  We're all looking for ways to make LPI more highly recognized in 
our industry, and to increase the level of awareness in hiring managers 
and decision makers of just how good a cert this is.  (Now that you 
mention it, I seem to remember a poster-sized and overly complex chart 
developed by a now-defunct certification body <before my time> that did 
more harm than good.)

> 2) LPI has never listed "requirements": based on years of experience. 
> Indeed, IMO that is a totally marketing-driven stat and as such can so 
> easily be manipulated as to be worthless.

I couldn't agree more, who knows what the person has been doing with 
those X years, snarfing down coffee and donuts while playing Tetris, or 
being a good sysadmin?

>At very least we ought to discourage charts like this, and encourage 
> people 
> to look a little deeper why to use or respect a cert. Then they get to 
> see that there are other dimensions, such as preparation options and 
> psychometric development, that get lets off of simple charts like 
>these.

I agree people should look deeper at why to use and respect a cert, but 
you know some people _won't_ take the time to be more informed about 
LPI.  

If a candidate for certs makes a decision based on who's got the more 
understandable path, and chooses another cert than LPI, we've lost a 
potential candidate.  But what about the overloaded and borderline ADD 
bosses, project leaders and hiring managers who _can't_ take the time to 
get deeply involved?  They need to grok LPI's value quickly and move on 
to other tasks.  

What happens if we confuse or don't properly inform a major decision 
maker? We potentially lose an ally in business or the professional 
sector.  That's my only point about all of this, help us by making (or 
guiding us ourselves to make) the tools to quickly and professionally 
convince these types of people, it will pay off in acceptance of the LPI 
brand and in the certs being more requested in the industry.

> 3) I (and LPI as an organization) have repeatedly rejected the kind of 
> naming scheme William presented, after thoughtful (and lengthy!) 
debate. 

"thoughtful (and lengthy) debate."  I'll bet, glad to have missed that 
particular session...

> 4) Making certifications for their own sake is not a good use of LPI's 
> limited resources.LPI needs to do a better job outlining our roadmap 
of 
> Level 3 and the desktop certification we are starting to develop. In 
> these discussions we have considered but rejected the super-user certs 
> as not being worthwhile to employers.

Great!  Give us an alternative to Linux+, I'll recommend the heck out of 
it, Comptia scotched themselves with the OSS community by supporting 
Software Choice with M$.

> IMO, our fundamental philosophy is better, which leads to more 
relevance 
> and less hard selling. We are trying to change the perceptions of the 
> industry, and industry that accepts abuse not tolerated in other 
fields. 
> Would you accept it if you had to get your drivers'license from Ford? 
> Would you trust a doctor whose medical degree came from Glaxo?

Again, well said!  Glad you are at the helm, you always take a measured 
approach to the issues.

> One other thing -- LPI is committed to adding hands-on capability to 
our 
> exams. 

Bravo, we look forward to seeing this addition.
> 
> LPI is developing a number of new delivery methods that will add 
> task-based items and adaptive testing techniques to conventional 
exams, 
> while keeping costs low and worldwide accessibility high. 

Similar to the Cisco exams?  That would be a very welcome thing, and 
would lend a hands-on flavor to the certification.

Thanks for taking the time from your trip to fill us in, Evan.  We 
appreciate your leadership and inclusiveness of all the different 
discussion points and views.

Ross




More information about the lpi-alumni mailing list