LPI-DE stops working
martin f krafft
madduck at madduck.net
Mon Jul 29 01:48:58 EDT 2002
also sprach Julie Thornton <julie at lpi.org> [2002.07.29.0527 +0200]:
> I personally subscribed to the EUWG list, but was not invited to the
> DE list.
Please excuse that. As I mentioned, we really wanted a list in German.
For most of us, writing in English is another difficulty that can
obscure the actual thoughts we'd like to share. If we can write in
German, then that obstacle is removed, and a forum as such provides
a whole lot more of a productive experience if you can write in your
native language. We chose German not to exclude people but to make it
easier for us. On the other hand, because it was German, we didn't
consider inviting around.
> Presumably, I did not have enough to offer (or was percieved to
> have LPI-INC interests ahead of those of the affiliate?)
It was merely a language issue. Ideally, the LPI Inc interests issue
should have been an advantage.
> > Unfortunately we had to learn that LPI-DE and LPI Inc. were unable to
> > agree on a common guideline and modus operandi. We are henceforth
> > forced to terminate our efforts with great regret -- at least for the
> > moment.
> The rest of the message had information that was vague and left me with more
> questions than answers. I was unable to learn from this original message
> what the areas of disagreement were and therefore felt that the message was
> of a nature to criticize LPI-INC for their behaviour without giving clear
> evidence of what that behaviour was.
I'll hope to be able to answer them. The original message represented
the work of six months as well as the correspondence with Chuck over
the last couple of weeks. It's difficult to condense that into
a coherent and clear message.
> It was interesting to see that there was specific information
> contained in Chucks message that will affect affiliate organizations
> worldwide which I had not seen and which clarified the position
> LPI-INC has regarding affiliate organizations.
LPI-DE had a hard time establishing the DOs and DONTs and the
fundament of a cooperation. THis is the reason why we wanted to
establish not our own cooperation circumstances, but also set an
example that would make it easier for future affiliates to get
started. LPI Japan was way too specific for LPI-DE to be able to
profit from their work.
> I am confused, as some comments made to me surrounding the formation
> of LPI-US said that LPI-INC specifically did NOT want all revenue
> generating activities to be focused on the revenue sharing that
> comes from LPI-INC. The sponsorship model used in LPI-Japan is
> frequently referenced by LPI-INC as a model for success. Therefore
> your comments Martin are not consistent with my own experiences.
It's not as black and white as I put it. In the long run, LPI-DE would
finance itself through sponsor money as well as test revenue. What
I am talking about is the beginning stages. On the one hand, we are
asked to get going, based on the test revenue of 10% for the first 90
days and to find sponsors for $50k, but on the other hand, we are not
given permission to use translated exams. It's not only the 12 of us
but most of our sponsors that want to see German tests. So we're in
a loop that's not easy to jump out of. I am sorry that I didn't phrase
> For LPI-US, we've planned to form a not-for-profit organization with
> alternate revenue streams which are dependent upon LPI-INC for all
> revenue and which are dependent upon sponsors, so I'm intensely
> curious about the issues that are involved with this "falling out"
> (an American term for a disagreement that leads to people ceasing to
> have a relationship).
LPI-DE's finished and polished financial model was built around
a not-for-profit organization that financed itself primarily through
sponsors. The test revenue was going to be used mainly for the
translation as well as to cover administrative costs of the German
> There are some very critical words on both sides of this
> disagreement and they have been placed before the eyes of a broad
> audience with varied interests. While engaging in constructive
> conversation can help build the future for the LPI program, the
> attacks on both sides leave a rather unpleasant taste and I hope
> that it will be possible to have clearer, more relevant information
> added to the discussion now that it is in such a public forum.
While I've lost a lot of my ideals and enthusiasm, I still want
LPI-DE. So I am all for constructive talk. I apologize for the
unpleasant taste of what I have written, but as I said yesterday, it's
the taste added to emails by someone who's just disillusioned, not
someone who's got a personal problem with anyone else.
Note also that while my opinions may apply to the LPI-DE team, this
message, as well as any message I send under my name, is strictly my
own opinion. If LPI-DE wants to say something to this forum, then Peer
will post a message accordingly identified.
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net at madduck
"micro$oft productivity software"
- see reductio ad absurdum, conclusions.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.lpi.org/pipermail/lpi-discuss/attachments/20020729/f6d8b3a9/attachment-0003.pgp
More information about the lpi-discuss