[lpi-discuss] Re: Linux Professional Institute changes
Recertification Policy -- how does LPI "pay" for all your "wants"?
Bryan J. Smith
b.j.smith at ieee.org
Tue Dec 5 13:19:55 EST 2006
Anselm Lingnau <anselm.lingnau at linupfront.de> wrote:
> True. But I don't trust HR people to draw fine distinctions of that
Show HR the LPIC logo. They are happy. Done.|
Now for the hiring manager or lead, _he/she_ will care.
Win-win in my book. As long as LPI allows use of the logo for even
INACTIVE LPIC Alumni, it works _perfectly_. In fact, the "problem"
with most, _other_ programs is that the vendor retracts your right to
use the logo after 2-3 years.
I hope LPI understands this. HR departments do _not_ care. They
want to see the pretty logo. But peer technologists do. Win-win.
Win for employers.
Win for peer professionals who update (and just don't "sit" on
And still a "win" for those people who _do_ "sit" on their LPIC-1
just to have the pretty logo for HR.
> Here is where Matthew's idea of having work experience, etc.,
> count towards recertification comes into play. Who cares
> whether you have read> the textbook if you have *written* it! :^)
And who is going to *PAY* for this? Really?!?!?!
Lab-based certs and peer-reviewed resumes and countless other
"processes" _cost_money_. So, again, how do you expect LPI to *PAY*
for all these "wants"?
I wrote my new blog article *NOT* to "give my opinion" (although I do
some of that at the end). It is to get people to *STOP* and
*REALIZE* why LPI is just *DIFFERENT*! ;->
To "pay" for all of what your "wants," LPI would either have to
massively jack up the exam prices -- or *WORSE* yet -- give into the
"training profit model." You want to see LPI _destroy_ its
objectivity overnight? Have them go that latter route. ;->
> Anyway, IMHO, so far the LPI executive has seen fit to tick off
> many LPI candidates and alumni. If on top of that they want to
> insult all the LPI *volunteers*, too, then they should go right
> ahead and set your certificate to INACTIVE in 2008.
And given the ...
A) Amount of ignorance into how LPI is *DIFFERENT*, especially its
cash flows ... and ...
B) The amount of rhetoric I have seen in this thread, with people
not stopping to care about the facts, let alone the _real_,
_professional_ reasons, are drowning out _legitimate_ comments and
complaints (like those from Evan)
So do you really think other _peers_ involved with LPI care what
people of A & B think?
Again, I _do_ *AGREE* that at least the Alumni list should have been
consulted _before_ this happened. But honestly, some of you guys are
just full of rhetoric that is _counter_ productive.
Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance
b.j.smith at ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com
Fission Power: An Inconvenient Solution
More information about the lpi-discuss