Re: consultant entries that will be removed unless they "pong"
Adam McKenna <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:53:30PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> > * Marc Haber <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005-07-15 17:47]:
> > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:26:53PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote:
> > > > Yes thats what I thought should be prevented. In my opinion
> > > > every website on the consultants page should clearly point
> > > > to debian.
> > >
> > > That's your opinion. I beg to differ. For example, you might have a
> > > consultancy company that does, as a policy, not link to any products
> > > they sell and support. Why should Debian demand to be listed there?
> > Yes that is also right but for example in the case of
> > federa.de it is not clear why it is listed on the consultant
> > page. They don't even say that they provide linux support. [...]
> Debian has *no* business of telling people what to put on their websites.
> If someone doesn't like the fact that a consultant doesn't list Debian on
> their website, then they don't have to use that consultant. Suggesting that
> we should be filtering out potential consultants based on the content of
> their websites is beyond ridiculous.
I think use of this argument is "beyond ridiculous". It cuts
both ways: consultants have no business demanding debian lists
them if they won't meet the list maintainers' criteria.
The consultants maintainers haven't given "must list debian on
webpage" as one of those criteria yet, though. I hope that the
worst case effect of introducing that one would be given beforehand.
I can see the benefit of it: debian's marketing could benefit from
it; as well as the drawbacks already posted here.
MJ Ray (slef), K. Lynn, England, email see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/