Re: partners nitpick
"Andre Felipe Machado" <andremachado@techforce.com.br> wrote:
> We were aware of these issues. But we had to publish soon the already approved
> text or the publishers could not renew budget for the next year.
Why couldn't they? Or was it merely that they wouldn't?
> The official criteria was already subject of discussion start 2 or 3 days ago.
> We should settle a reasonable criteria yet.
Great! Where is that discussion?
When colleagues and myself asked about becoming debian partners, we
were directed towards http://www.debian.org/devel/join/ instead. I'm
already a DD and I think some of my colleagues are, but we're a bit
limited in what development we can do on company time without
justifying it for business reasons - I think debian partner status
would help justify it.
Unless it supplies equipment, the criteria look pretty unattainable
for tech worker co-ops, unless debian has some need for paid
maintainers, core technical service or consulting that isn't widely
known.
What does debian need that would qualify for partner status?
I think most co-ops work on the basis of giving when asked,
rather than offering random stuff we think might be wanted.
I think I emailed this to partners@debian.org previously without
seeing a reply to that part, but I could be wrong.
> The other section headers would be discussed. All text need some rounds of debates.
> There is also another issues:
> - What is the most polite way to phrase that any company or people that we
> forgot was not by intention and anyoune that find a missing partner in the list
> should contact us for inclusion?
"Any eligible organization missing from this list is probably not
intentional. Please contact us to suggest inclusion of a missing
partner."?
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: