quality of http://bizdev.openoffice.org/consultants.html

Hi,

On 2006-11-16, at 14:44 , Peter Vandenabeele wrote:

> On 11/16/06, Louis Suarez-Potts <luispogmail.com> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
> -------


Does that answer your point?

Cheers,
Louis

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 <luispogmail.com> 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 <grsingletonopenoffice.org>
OpenOffice.org