* 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