JeffM, It seems you are making a leap from asking service providers how big they are to this alienating them or somehow excluding ones of a certain size (big or small it's not clear). Can you explain the thoughts behind your argument here? I think the rest of us are saying that everyone should be included and that being small is often a strength.
Thanks everyone for speaking up! Jeff On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:06 andrea antonello <andrea.antone...@gmail.com> wrote: > As member of a mini-micro-company, I will also add my 2 cents. > > [...] > > From the standpoint of an organization looking for a provider, size may > also > > be important, a larger company > > typically has a better financial footing (mandatory in certain types of > > contracts), and possibly a more diversified experience > > among its ranks. Also, it might happen that the customer is looking for a > > certain experience with the provider > > (e.g, matching or getting closer to its own size, or looking for the more > > industrial vs the more "boutique" > > approach). > > So... what about reporting the size of the company among the other > > information, even if it is > > not the primary classifier? The size could be reported as classes to > lessen > > the chore of maintaing such > > information (e.g, "1-5", "5-20", "20-50", "50+", just thinking out loud > > here) > > I agree with Andrea. I do not feel alienated due to the size of my > company. In fact many times the size is a choice and it might even be > a positive factor for certain scenarios. > > I like the classes approach proposed here. > > Cheers, > Andrea > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss