On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 22:51 -0500, Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: > Hi, > > On 2006-11-16, at 14:44 , Peter Vandenabeele wrote: > > > On 11/16/06, Louis Suarez-Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 2006-11-16, at 07:30 , Kaj Kandler wrote: > >> > Agreed, I'd rather go to work as well to fix the current page first > >> > and then see where we go from there. Do you see any sense in > >> that? Or > >> > do you feel this is a waste of time and effort? > >> > >> No, not at all. The changeover to a for-fee wiki (or equiv or not) > > ^^^^^^^^ > > > > Could you please indicate if you could agree that there also > > continues to > > exist a *non-paying* page that lists a number of consultants on the > > openoffice.org website ? > > That page is right now the consultants page, which I want to turn > into a paying page. There is no quick yes/no answer. Rather, I would > want the default listing to be for fee with exceptions made to those > who significantly contribute to the project. They would be listed on > the page, along with everyone else and not be slotted to a ghetto (to > make it melodramatic).
That would be nice to recognize contributors. My listing is there and, I, like others, would find the fee a bit onerous. > > > > I would strongly prefer the project also keeps a non-paying > > consultants > > page on its website, because I am afraid of too much "false positives" > > (that is: consultant entries that have genuine value to the project > > and its > > users, but that for some reason or another, do not want to pay the fee > > to be listed on the paying sponsors site). > > Oh, I agree with the idea that we should list those contributing. > Hence the idea of exceptions. I like this more and more :-) > > > > Next to that, I do see value in a paying "sponsors" site, and that > > requires > > a separate policy and more detailed management, but for a smaller > > amount of entries. > > > Hm. The policy I tend to think should be really simple, and it could > apply as well to other areas of OOo where we will be listing things > for fee, eg, extensions. That is: provider should be non-offensive, > with us being the judge of what "offensive means" (no need to specify > it). What else? Heck, if Microsoft wants to list on that page--why not? I would like to see the list culled before we do more. In attempting to direct those seeking professional assistance on the users list I found many that did not list OOo services or were defunct. This is especially true for those countries/areas with poor IT infrastructure. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Peter > > > > ------- > > > Does that answer your point? > > Cheers, > Louis -- G. Roderick Singleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenOffice.org
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
