Re: consultant entries that will be removed unless they "pong"
On 7/15/05, Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> But then, how do we not know they don't propose redhat solutions or whatever
> to people coming to them through us ?
I've implemented migrations and cross-packaging from Red Hat to
Debian, Debian to Ubuntu, Ubuntu to Red Hat, and various other
pairwise combinations -- strictly because it was a prudent choice for
the client's business purposes. What makes it Debian's business what
decision a consultant and her client agree is best for them?
Commercial vendors who demand that a reseller or consultant refrain
from presenting alternatives to their customers risk a catastrophic
loss of trust, and in some cases even liability under anti-trust /
unfair competition laws. Why, for Pete's sake, put Debian in this
position with no prospect whatever of anyone benefiting?
We don't want garbage entries on the list. Garbage entries are the
unreachable, the fraudulent, and the ones that generate serious,
well-founded complaints from those who attempt to retain their
services. Anyone willing to invest a modicum of time and energy,
_consistently_ over the course of years, can maintain that list just
fine without the benefit of a formal policy or the kibitzing of all
Thomas has probably heard, and taken note of, the concern that many
free-lance Debian consultants are on an academic year schedule and
less responsive during the summer. If he thinks they should be given
a bye until September, that's fine; if he thinks they should be
dropped and can re-request listing in September, that's fine too.