On 7/15/05, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 comers. 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. Cheers, - Michael
