* martin f krafft [Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:17:39 +0200]:
> Then they go on to state that Debian is
> - reliable
> - secure
> - upgradeable
> - integrateable
> - preconfigured
> - remotely administratable
> and that they add support and maintenance, which adds the features
> - reliable release cycle
> - newest packages
> - security team
> - preselected packages
> - security administration
> - certification
> - software tests
> I'd be interested in what people think. Am I just overreacting?
I think you're reacting in the wrong direction (or at least, in the
wrong direction for a *first* reaction.)
With this I mean that, if Debian initiates contact with this entity, I'd
like for it to be to mention that, if they're interested, they can
contact DPL-delegated Project Member Joe to work out and discuss
possible ways to have some of their work go back to Debian. (See below)
I'd offer myself, but while I know the Debian side well, I'm quite
unfamiliar with the enterprise environment. I'd be happy to act as an
assistant of the delegated person, should anybody step. :-)
* * *
Having their work go back to Debian may sound impossible to you if you
think of "straightaway", but it should be workable. To mention a couple
ideas:
* release the backports they produce ("newest packages") after a
while; eg. release backport for AppFrog X.Y.Z right after they've
made X.Y.Z+1 available to their clients; or X.Y+1.0; or X+1.0.0.
* allow the staff that prepares security updates for them, to spend 1
out of each X working hours preparing a patch for a vulnerability
present in a stable package they don't support, coordinating with
the Security Team as to not duplicate effort.
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
«Ara que ets la meva dona, te la fotré fins a la melsa, bacona!»
-- Terenci Moix, “Chulas y famosas”
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature