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 toexist 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 consultantspage on its website, because I am afraid of too much "false positives"(that is: consultant entries that have genuine value to the project and itsusers, 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 requiresa 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
