[lpi-discuss] Principles for creation of exam objectives
ross e. brunson
ross at brunson.org
Fri Jul 29 15:48:20 EDT 2005
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 09:33 +0200, Torsten Scheck wrote:
> I agree with both comments and I appreciate your thoughtful assessment
> of each word of my statement. To be honest, I didn't pay so much
> attention to my own words, as I tried to explain just the rough direction.
> Now I realise, that both of you had already made the first steps in that
> direction by that time. ;-)
LOL, "thoughtful assessment of each word of my statement" isn't totally
true, usually I just scan by the syllable, or the sentence when Bryan is
on a rip!
You've got some people in the community that can help a lot, but it's
not always clear or discernable how that can happen. I think we all
want a set of the most appropriate and valid certs possible, and that
there will be times when we have to compromise something we want to
happen, because it's either not doable in the question format or weakens
the whole process. I think of that when I am discussing what MTA or
whatever is the right one to test, sometimes the needs of the many do
outweigh the needs of the few. (Sorry Mr. Spock, it just fit here...)
> 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 well-known.
Hey, you don't have to *get* us interested, we're VERY interested in the
process. As I said to someone the other day, we need to be aware of the
process, feel like we can support it and if it's broken, the process-
maintainers should be open to constructive input...
> Here is the exam objectives review process for Level 1, which is in
> progress right now:
> I'm very curious which of Ross' points could complement our existing
> Maybe there should be a new wiki page with Ross' work as outline, so we
> can fill it with some more meat?
I view the creation of Wiki pages in this manner as being the equivalent
of the databases we used to have to create to track that important
project or situation, the ones that sat on the network for a long time
and gathered dust.
It may seem like an old-fashioned way to do it, but as a rule, I think
that this set of Wiki pages ought to be a living document, a revisioned
white paper that gets posted regularly and is more than obvious to those
who want to reassure themselves of the process or simply to determine
what the process is.
This is one situation where being online is less solid and credible than
a PDF that can be archived and referred to.
> Thank you very much again for your contributions so far.
More information about the lpi-discuss