LGTM.

Although I suggest some changes in the table:
- More important than a company description would be what they offer (see e.g. 
Postgres Page: https://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_support/europe/)
- I would make it a bit smaler
- And Involvement level we should standardize a bit perhaps. You wrote "PMC 
Member ". But what does that mean? The company? No. One employee? Two?
- I would state "muliple Employees are PMC members" (which is also true for cc).

WDYT?

J

Am 05.06.20, 13:03 schrieb "Christofer Dutz" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de>:

    Hi all,

    I have just added a new page to the PLC4X website, however it’s not yet 
linked in the navigation and therefore should remain invisible until Google 
indexes this email ;-)
    It will be available soon from here (As soon as Jenkins is done):
    https://plc4x.apache.org/users/commercial-support.html


    What we have there is pretty inspired by the support page of the Apache 
Royale project:
    https://royale.apache.org/royale-commercial-support/

    However I used some different wording and a different proposal for a 
process to add entries.

    I would suggest to use PRs as this way we can have the account of the PR 
creator on-file in git-blame. Which might come in handy if there should ever be 
problems.

    We were told that in general everyone would be required to have him/herself 
added to that list no matter their involvement with the project. That’s why I 
decided to start with this in my proposal. I think with a column on the level 
of involvement should separate the true contributors from the others.

    I think there were also voices that said that an alternative would be a PMC 
vote, but with very strict rules to how this vote should be done and all votes 
should have to be performed without any individual bias.

    I asked the Royale project on how they dealt with entry requests to that 
list … they sort of laughed as they didn’t seem to really get any requests at 
all.

    What’s your opinion on this … also the ASF’s opinion is greatly appreciated 
as we don’t want to do anything that could harm the ASF.

    So I would really like to do it the way I proposed it, but that’s just my 
opinion … your other opinions are worth just as much (Well ok … the ASF’s 
opinion will probably weigh more ;-) )


    Chris


Reply via email to