[lpi-discuss] Principles for creation of exam objectives
torsten.scheck at gmx.de
Fri Jul 29 10:21:05 EDT 2005
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> Torsten Scheck wrote:
>> The purpose of all my comments has been to get you (our stakeholders)
>> interested in our processes and invite you to check, if those
>> processes are okay in your books. As the former sendmail discussion
>> didn't touch those processes, I assumed that our processes are not
> On the contrary. The MTA discussion that Mark started was an integral
> part of the process, specifically intended to engage in what Ross
> described as
>> - Polling sysadmins as to most commonly-used packages
>> - Normalizing between "real-world" and "included-with-distro" packages
> It's also a fully legitimate part of the process described on the wiki,
> specifically the component said to have started July 1:
>> Update L1 Objectives, using community feedback collected during this
> So it's incorrect to say that the MTA discussion was outside the known
> process, and thus inaccurate to use such an assertion as a premise for
> other assumptions or assertions.
I agree, that the discussion is part of this process.
But the issues resulting from this discussion (Let's make a survey about
MTA usage! What relevance would the survey's results have for our
decision? ...) showed, that we either lack detailed processes or that
the list members don't know about their existence.
I want to support the current process, not question it.
Torsten Scheck <torsten.scheck at gmx.de> Jabber:torsten at i0i0.de
GnuPG 1024D/728E 6696 F43D D622 78F1 F481 45C0 2147 69AB DD54
software engineer:open standards/access/knowledge:enthgnusiast
More information about the lpi-discuss