[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
> kind.

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 mailing list