Re: Inclusion in the Debian consultant list
Gi all,
Il giorno mer, 07/11/2012 alle 20.48 +0100, Simon Paillard ha scritto:
[...]
> Don't you think we should move that to a wiki page so that people add
> themselves ?
>
> While we can filter vendors that do not sell the last Debian version, there is
> little added value in manual processing of consultants.
Currently the backlog is way longer. The last request added was sent on
14 October 2011 and it was replied on 19 August 2012. We do have a lot
of requests pending, but I do not have right now the correct number.
A few days ago I spoke with Zack about this problem. He suggested again
to change the request procedure: instead of sending an email to a
private address, open a bug report. This would let requester at least
know that their request has been delivered. Moreover, anyone could fix
any of these bugs, adding the request, or writing notes on the bug
report.
I replied that this only solve a small part of the problem and add new
small problems. My questions were: How do we manage to close bugs in a
FIFO manner? May we use BTS for collecting information about periodical
checks on listed consultants? Would it be better to use a database to
keep track of al actions on a specific consultant request? Is there any
way to automate checking that Debian consultancy is really published at
the link that consultants may provide? How would people publicly use and
email address on BTS for asking to be added as consultants using
scrambled email address?
I recall a few months ago, we talked in debian-www about a common
procedure that would allow to add consultants, cd vendors, and debian
users. I suggested to Zack that this common procedure could be written
via a GSOC project or something similar.
Such a procedure could also add some new features: we currenty have the
"additional info" web page in only one language. Should we let
consultants have this page translated? Many of them only care about
local clients, so they would probably prefer to use local language on
this page.
So, does anyone have any hint on how to work on current backlog?
(Basically, does anyone have enough available time?)
Any comment about a way to change this procedure?
Thanks,
Giuseppe
Reply to: