LPI Reiterates and Updates Certification Policies

The Linux Professional Institute (LPI) has recently reiterated its exam retake policies and recommendations as well updated its recertification policy with the recertification requirements to maintain an ACTIVE status. I will attempt to cut through the rhetoric with the facts, the tracks, newer developments and, finally, my professional opinions.

Overview:

- Who is LPI? How are they different?
- Just the Facts of the New LPI Recertification Policy
- The LPI Certified Level 3 (LPIC-3) and New Specialization Developments
- Opinions from a LPI "Outsider"
- Democracy v. Meritocracy+Executive

Who is LPI? How are they different?

Before I answer that, let's step back and look at other companies (and their motives) in the certification industry. There are three (3) types of certification companies, from most to least recognized, at least typically ...

1. For-Profit Product Vendor
2. For-Profit Training or For-Profit/Non-Profit Industry Associations
3. Non-Profit or Government-Related Professional Organizations

And before I being to address those, let's look at where each obtains their revenue, in order of most profitable to least profitable ...

1. Product and support sales with possibly some training-related revenue
2. Training, training materials and other training-related revenue
3. Certification and other, exam-centric fees with extensive volunteering by industry

By far, the most recognizable certifications are those of, by and for a vendor and its products. They are driven by the sheer economies of scale of the hardware and software products sold, and the training of professionals on and for the product ensures the product sells because it is supported. Some demonize this as "pushing product," and some do little to actually put "value" into an otherwise worthless, computered-administered examination with a lot of high profit-margin training (or training partnerships) built around them. But some vendors do take the time and effort to care about the quality of their certifications. Cisco and Red Hat deliver lab-based certification to ensure many of its qualified professionals actually have "hands-on" with the product. The programs aren't perfect (and Cisco is guilty of some of its lesser certifications being computer-administered "cakewalks" like others), but they are a solid attempt by the vendors to present individuals as adequately competent with the product in common usage.

The second type is commonplace among many, alleged "vendor-neutral" certification organizations. Most of these organizations, although their certifications are branded differently, are actually for-profit training organizations. They sell their own training materials, training programs or certified training licenses to select partners and trainers. In a nutshell, training is the revenue, and it can be a very profitable one. If the demonizing is "pushing product" for the former, it's definitely "selling training" in this case. I have personally balked at some of the "test of a test" type questions that I assume formal training would answer on some exams in one of these "vendor-neutral" programs, and reverse my logic when I retook the exam (the only one I ever failed) and got a perfect 100% on the section I had previously failed (even though I had made an 85% overall, I got a 69% -- 1% under the section minimum).

Lastly, but not leastly, are non-profit organizations or government agencies charged with certification and licensure. Although some fees are collected from actual examination, certification and licensure, most of their "resources" come directly from volunteers in the industry. Rules, statues and objectives, consideration for locale titles and relevance of knowledge, practices and principles are the foundation of their focus, content and the resulting professional who is entitled their designation. These organizations thrive on community involvement, but that community involvement must be a "put up or shut up" involvement, with actual donation of time towards not only developments, but the openness to consider both ideas from peer-professionals as well as, and just as much, what commercial organizations in the industry consider "important" for a professional to know and respect.

The not-for-profit Linux Professional Institute (LPI) is the last type, earning no money from vendor alignment or partnerships and no money from training or sale of materials or any related training partnerships. And despite early, multi-vendor funding, LPI has been self-sufficient for almost a half-decade now. It survives on the limited funding it receives from direct examination and the countless volunteers who help develop and analyze the objectives and exams themselves.

LPI has certified more Linux professionals world-wide than any other Linux program.

Just the Facts of the New LPI Recertification Policy

There is countless comments, complaints and even some rhetoric and FUD flying about regarding LPI's new Recertification Policy (see Section 6). I hope to cut through these comments and get to the facts.

1. Perpetual Certification: LPI Certifications are perpetual -- i.e., LPI Alumni who obtain LPI Certified (LPIC) status at any level will always be in the LPI database as a professional who has obtained LPIC status.

2. Linux Knowledge is Perpetual: LPI has, since Day 1, always stated that they value all Alumni who obtain their certifications and believe that Linux technical knowledge, unlike most vendor hardware/software products that change significantly with every version (many times, often purposely for marketing/forced upgrades/recertification) is perpetual.

3. Certification Date Is Relevant: LPI has also, since Day 1, stated that both Alumni and employers should take into consideration the date of the certification, and whether concepts from the examination version and period are relevant to today's new Linux capabilities that were not tested prior.

4. Minimum and Recommended Retake: LPI has always had the policy that no Alumni may retake any certification exams until they are revised, although it recommends Alumni retake certification exams whenever the objectives are revised. NOTE: This has been roughly every two (2) years, at least in the case of LPIC-1 (exams 101 and 102), which is the highest level approximately 90% of LPI Alumni have obtained.

Even with this new policy, these terms have not changed since Day 1. Several people have even gone as far as demonizing and proliferating rhetoric using item #4 (which is an abuse of such a Democratic process or any organization that listens to its providers and consumers), saying that LPI requires you to retake the exams every 2 years. This is not the case at all -- never has been, never will be! The recommendation, to retake the exams on every objective revision, has not changed since Day 1.

Since then, the policy has been augmented as follows.

A. ACTIVE v. INACTIVE Status: In 2004, LPI decided to introduce an ACTIVE and INACTIVE status for LPI Alumni. Alumni who have an ACTIVE status must recertify before their ACTIVE period expires. Alumni who have an INACTIVE certification (did not recertify before the date their ACTIVE period expired) must pass all lower and current exams again to regain an ACTIVE status at the same level.

B. Five Year ACTIVE Status: In 2006, LPI has instigated the following requirements for maintaining ACTIVE status:

- Certified prior to 2003 September 01: Must recertify by 2008 September 01 or lose ACTIVE status in database.
- Certified after 2003 September 01: Must recertify within a 5 year period after their certification.

Recertify: The recertification terms are clearly open right now, but will be better defined in the near future (see the next section on LPIC-3 and specialty developments). At this time, it means passing all of the exams at your current level, namely exams 101 and 102 if LPIC-1 and exam 201 and 202 (but not 101 and 102 again) if LPIC-2. In the near future (i.e., 2007), a new LPI Certified Level 3 (LPIC-3) and specializations beyond LPIC-2 will be available.

All of these new developments will be released well before any existing LPI certification becomes INACTIVE (the first date any would become INACTIVE being 2008 Sep 01).

The LPI Certified Level 3 (LPIC-3) and Specialization Developments

For more on the LPI Certified Level 1 and 2 (LPIC-1 and LPIC-2) tracks, see my 3 year-old blog entry on Linux Certification: CompTIA, LPI and Red Hat (from 2003 May). Unlike prior LPI certification levels, LPIC-3 is going to offer a set of options.

Although LPIC-3 has not yet been finalized, it is clearly the "Mastery" level. As such, broad, general exams used at levels 1 (Junior Administrator, equivalent to 18 months of full-time employment in an enterprise LAN/WAN/Internet environment) and 2 (Seasoned Administrator of 36 months) are not are easily applicable. LPIC-3 exams are going to be specific to technologies, more towards a Mastery-level.

Now not every administrator is going to have Master-level knowledge of every, major Linux technology and implementation. As such, LPIC-3 will be a set of elective exams. The first two (2) level 3 exams currently in development are Samba (and network filesystem-related services) and LDAP (and network directory-related services). At least four (4) other LPIC-3 exams are also being developed, but will be released later. Industry input is driving these two (2) exam choices for the initial LPIC-3 release.

So like prior levels, only two (2) level 3 exams will need to be passed to obtain LPIC-3 certification. For the initially available LPIC-3 track, only Samba and LDAP will be available. For subsequent exam releases, more options and combinations will become available. There is open speculation regarding whether a higher level title, such as Master LPIC-3 or LPI Certified Level 4 (LPIC-4), will be achievable upon release of all six (6) exams currently under development. First things are first, as LPIC-3 must become available.

But more realistically is the flexibility of the LPI program when level 3 exams become available. Specializations and other titles are options for those at LPIC-2. These specializations also become a draw in value for those approximately 90% of LPI Alumni who only obtained LPIC-1 and stopped, and reason to obtain LPIC-2. And given the recertification requirements to maintain ACTIVE status every five (5) years, just taking one (1) LPI level 3 exam, and earning a new specialization, becomes a direct way to recertify.

In fact, one could argue this is the best "continuing education requirement" offered yet in an IT certification program. Most professions require completion of "continuing education" every 5 years to maintain a certification or license, and most of these are under the direct ethic to force individuals to "learn something new." Taking a new LPI level 3 exam, and earning a new specialization in the process (let alone LPIC-3 after two level 3 specialization exams), is a great way not to just have people "take the same old exam!"

A program must continue to maintain a sense of "current value" to its certified individuals. LPI has always and will always recognize every Alumni who achieves any LPIC status. As LPI offers the LPIC-3 with its master-level of specializations, it opens up the opportunity to enforce real "continuing education requirements." And LPI has chosen to do so on a 5-year cycle, which is an accepted, "real world," non-profit/government certification/licensing practice.

Opinions from a LPI "Outsider"

I am a traditionally degreed engineer. Although I keep putting off my Professional Engineering (PE) license, one of these days** I'll bite-the-bullet and obtain it. And when I do, the "continuing education requirement" every 5 years or so becomes a reality.

[ **NOTE: I largely waiting for the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and various state Board of Professional Engineers (BoPE) to not only recognize software engineering as a legitimate, licensed engineering practice, but actually offer a true Practices and Principles exam for it. Until then, all I can take is the general, Electrical Engineering examination with 4 specialization options for the second half. Both the non-profit IEEE and the non-profit NCEES have had the course ware, examination materials and, most importantly, the attitude -- saying "it's time" for Software Engineering for the last 10 years, especially from a "safety" and an "in public interest" standpoint -- but the "bridge builders" must not listen well as they control much of the process (don't get me started). ]

In the IT certification world, which I largely loathe, the recertification process is largely a joke. After going several bouts with Cisco after taking all 5 exams of the dual-CCDP/CCNP track (not including the 2-exams for the pre-requisite CCDA/CCNA), Cisco informed me one of my exams was "too old," even though I only took it 3 months earlier. And if I want to recertify my RHCE, I have to take the full day, 6-hour lab exam all over again at full price ($750 in 2003). And if you think that's bad, I can't wait to see what Red Hat requires for recertification on the RHCA -- a 5-exam set of 3-6 hour lab exams!

Now those are the sets of exams from two (2) of the, maybe, three (3), "best" vendor programs out there (Novell being the only other vendor that offers lab or simulator-based exams). When you start talking other vendor exams, they are even worse. And that's before we even look at CompTIA, which only tests at an over-simplified "6-months of experience" level, let alone is heavily influenced by industry and training vendors.

There has been a lot of rhetoric flying about, even the word "proprietary," on this new recertification requirement to maintain the ACTIVE status. Many have started to question LPI's organizational decisions as of late. Now everyone should understand that the LPI leaderhsip and organization has changed over the past year or two. While I have nothing but good things to say about those who "got the process rolling" in the first 5-6 years -- from the founders and original leaders like Evan to the Pritchards to countless other volunteers, it was inevitable that LPI would gain enough "business mindshare" that industry factors would reshape it. This is required to keep the LPI organization moving forward, especially with all the additional and expedited developments that were always going to occur.

But the community is large enough that we can't always do everything in a "Democracy," and it's turning into more of a combination of "Meritocracy" combined with "Executive Leadership." Democracies are great, but they aren't always efficient -- and sometimes can be defeating. "Meritocracies" are definitely "put up or shut up" and you can be certain that with individuals like Matt running the exam development, he's definitely a "put up" type of guy. At the same time, you have to have "Executive Leadership" that finally "makes a decision" or otherwise things don't move forward -- and can (and often does) drop into a mode of "tit4tat" style rhetoric and political arguments. As long as that "Executive Leadership" consults the community, it works (and I'll let others argue whether or not this happened).

With that all said, I haven't really "put up" anything (really haven't had any time due to consulting work since the April committees in Boston), so I tend to "shut up" other than to point out these simple realities. I still owe Matt countless hours I offered, but haven't fulfilled.

Democracy v. Meritocracy+Executive

This is not the first time such an "organization" has been debated. The Debian Project clearly uses a huge Democracy of maintainers, with some Meritocracy, and even some Executive (but it's largely removed and has virtually no power in decisions). Most of Debian's "commercial decision making" base begins with the original Progeny corporation started by its founder, and is now the separate DCC Alliance (of which Progeny participates in).

I could not count on my hands how many times the LPI Discuss list has going through clearly "heated commentary" on MTAs (among countless other things). Why sendmail? Why this? Why not that? At some point, you have to pick what you can support, for whatever reasons. E.g., optional sectioning costs real money from Prometric/Vue for their computer-administered testing formats, and at some point, there has to be a decision on what 1 or 2 MTAs to support.

One of the beautiful things about Debian is the flexibility in kernel, GCC and GLibC -- essential the base ABI/API (Application Binary Interface, Application Programming Interface) in each release. It's also one of the major issues with Debian for industry. The DCC Alliance is standardizing the ABI/API for industry. Many have balked about this, but it's the type of "Executive Decision" I'm talking about.

Not to throw "Linux branding" into the mix, but with another, purely community-developed distro -- The Fedora Project -- Red Hat forces the base ABI/API (among other) aspects. There will always be one (1), fixed, base ABI/API per release. It gets specific to "get things done." It's not perfect, it's less flexible, and many people don't like the limitations. But for most of the community and all of the industry, it works and allows consistent releases in a timely manner that are well integration-tested.

There's nothing wrong with such things being done in the Debian world, and I hope we see more moves like the DCC Alliance is making on Debian. After all, Debian can continue to address the community better than a single vendor like Red Hat, at the same time, multiple vendors in the DCC Alliance can tie-down and make the Executive Decisions required to push things through to support industry. In the same regard, as long as LPI's Executive listens to its members and always adheres to the advice of its Meritocracy, built on the Democracy of its Alumni, it can serve both the community and its industry well.