Ok, I've taken a few days to digest the feedback on the second round of
concensus building. I'm glad we were able to get some wall-flowers to
participate! ;) I'll tackle the issue of recertification in a second,
but before we do that I'd like to move that we accept the second
concensus point on exam renewal.
The only critical reply that I saw was Alan's. Alan, I think your
points are valid, but I don't think they fall outside the wording of the
second concensus point. All the concensus point requires is that update
at least once every two years. From Scott's emails, it sounded like
revising at least every two years would be a minimal psychometric
technical requirement. There's nothing prohibiting more frequent
revisions however. Alan if you or anyone else has further discussion on
this one, then let's branch it off into a seperate email. Otherwise I
say let's accept it as originally written.
So, onto the topic of recertification. I was glad to see some strong
opinions on this topic because it's definitely an issue we'll encounter
down the road; better to settle it now. Let's chalk up the second
revision of the recert concensus point to a _looong_ week on my part and
try something a little more in line with the feedback I've seen:
---------
Recertification:
LPI will not require certificate holders to renew or recertify. LPI
will provide to third parties, at the certificate holder's request,
information pertaining to the history of test(s) passed, the date the
test(s) were passed, and the revision date/level(s) of the passed
test(s). In providing this information, LPI reserves the right to
indicate the current revision level of any or all of the test(s) passed
by the certificate holder and to issue public advisories concerning
changes in the content or objectives of the test(s).
---------
Basically, what we're trying to do here is strike a balance between
protecting the long term viability of LPI while delivering real value to
the certificate holder. As I see it, we're trying to create a policy
that:
o Minimizes LPI's Liability -- People that we say are certified
really can do the things outlined in the objectives.
o Maximizes the Value of the Certificate -- Part of which
includes not allowing the value to be diluted by continuing
innovations in the industry. (Several people pointed out that
basic *nix hasn't changed in more than 20 years. This is true
but keep in mind at higher levels we're going to be
certifing content with a shorter shelf life. )
o Recognizes that Unused Knowledge Fades -- Yes, it's the
employer's job to realize that someone with a 3 year old cert
who hasn't touched a computer since, is probably not the
best candidate. OTOH, since we're not requiring recert we do
need some way to protect ourselves against lawsuits (however
frivolous they may be) from clueless consumers of our product.
(product = certificate holders)
o Recognizes that Even Current Practitioners' Knowledge Looses
Value Over Time -- Let's face it, even someone working w/Linux
every day isn't likely to use 100% of the skills they
certified on a regular basis. Even then, there's always the
problem with current practitioners sticking to legacy
solutions to problems. (How many people do you know who still
refuse to use anything but vi?) Its real effect may be
small but it does get back to the credibility issue.
o Provides Reassurance to _All_ of LPI's Consumers -- Consumers
of LPI's end product (certified Linux professionals) must have
the confidence in the system (a prerequisite) but must also
find it easier to utilize than the alternatives. (Other certs,
doing it themselves, outsourcing to a recruiting agency, etc.)
The harder we make it for the consumer to rely on LPI as a
tool, the less likely we make it that we're going to succeed.
My point being, the more work we make an employer do to
determine the value of the certificate, the less attractive
the whole process becomes.
At the same time, we need a system that doesn't unduly burden
the certificate holders (also consumers) with needless
recertification costs (time and money) or devalue their
skills based simply on the time elasped since they last
certified (which has been pointed out can be a bad
predictor of ability.).
So let's hear what you think.
Jared
Jared Buckley wrote:
>
> Here's draft number two of the concensus:
>
> Recertification:
>
> LPI will not require certificate holders to renew or recertify. LPI
> will keep records of the test(s) passed and the revision date/level(s)
> of the passed test(s). LPI reserves the right to expire (cease to
> recognize) specific certifications that are more than two years old.
>
> Exam Renewal Consensus:
>
> LPI will revise the content of its exams in order to provide for new
> material, test validity, security, and to incorporate feedback from
> experience as deemed necessary, but not less frequently than every two
> years.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe:
> echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
This message was sent by the linux-cert-program mailing list. To unsubscribe:
echo unsubscribe | mail -s '' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
