[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: http://www.debian.org/consultants/ policy

Am Montag, den 01.11.2004, 22:03 +0100 schrieb martin f krafft:

> > So you dont need to be listed there?;)
> Well, I'd say 'touché', but I don't think so. Being listed there is
> *is* helpful, and it's like a phone book entry. Being listed in the
> phone book or on a reference page like this should not require a web
> page, should it?

Hmm, we both have differnt opinion. OK.

> > I hope you all get my point.
> No, not really.

:( Sadly you dont comment the last 2 examples. How to handle them? I
want a way how to handle them and not discuss URL vs non-URL.

> > In the past we added everything, really everthing to this list
> > whithout quality checks.:( They cannot be done whithout a mini
> > policy, imho.
> What does a web page have to do with quality of service, or even
> with availability?

I could check it without sending mails were I always get back "Yes, we
do everything and are the best". Sure it can be done on the webpage, too
but The user (this is why we have this way) can inform himself about the
company/consultant. This is the intention of the web.
The next one will come and say: I have no e-mail or dont not want to
give it to you because phonenumber is enough to contact me? How to
handle this?

> > We (Debian) should have a minimum of quality in this list or the
> > list will become more or less useless for the user.
> Well, I fundamentally agree. But then, please assess quality, and
> not web presence.

OK. Then tell me a useable way how to handle the 3 examples?
You are just saying my way is wrong but dont show a better way. This
might be the usual Debian way but it doesn't help me.:(
Doing it the way we did is wrong (I think we all agree here) and it has
to change imho.
Or should it be decided by a person just like he wants it?

Noèl Köthe <noel debian.org>
Debian GNU/Linux, www.debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Reply to: