On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:41:58PM +0100, Luca Capello wrote:
> > [ Quoted text reordered ]
> Strange, I found Francesca's reply quite clear and linear/successive,
> especially considering that the two problems we are discussing are yes
> linked, but the solution is independent from one to the other (read
> below for more details).
[ Completely off-topic, but when I re-order quoted text is not because
the original mail was not linear/successive. Usually it's rather just
because I need to factorize part of my answer and relate them to part
of the original mail which are interleaved by other parts to whom I
want to answer differently. ]
> > I believe that Luk started doing that on the wiki just because it was
> > easier™ that way. Given that the list doesn't change that often, I
> > believe that once it's stable that list deserves a proper place on
> > www.d.o (do you want a bug report about that?). Considering how
> > important those organizations are for Debian, even a specific
> > per-organization sub-page might be warranted.
>
> I would argue against so-much specific pages on www.d.o: why should
> Debian itself give information about "other" organizations? Please note
> the double quotes: IMHO this should be done by the Trusted Organizations
> themselves on their own pages, given that they are different entities
> WRT to Debian, while still being Debian.
That is a good point. Still, a potential reason I (now) see for having
subpages would be that: (1) there is too much information to keep in a
single overview page of trusted organizations and (2) we cannot rely on
a common presentation of such information by relying on external
website. All in all, I think this is completely a call of the -www team,
I'm fine with whatever you people will come up to.
> It could be seen as too much business-oriented, but I think that no one
> will complain if Trusted Organizations are the first choice available,
> given that Debian has full power over them (read below).
I mostly skip further comments on this aspects, as I've already
clarified my take. In short, my bottom line is that I have a slight
preference for listing trusted organizations (which do merchandising as
well) first.
> Frankly speaking, this would be surely a mess. It is already difficult
> to maintain the current list, given that apart the status of the vendor
> (easily verifiable, just visit the website), there is no way to verify:
> first, if they are behaving correctly WRT the customers (shipping on
> time the selected goodies) and, second, how much they actually donate
> back to Debian.
I fully trust your judgement on this.
Thanks for revamping this,
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature