On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 16:20, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > On 10/13/2010 04:13 PM, Blair Zajac wrote: >> On 10/13/2010 12:26 PM, hwri...@apache.org wrote: >>> Author: hwright >>> Date: Wed Oct 13 19:26:49 2010 >>> New Revision: 1022250 >>> >> >>> +<li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads"> >>> + WANdisco</a> (professionally supported and certified by >> >> What do we mean that it's been "certified". I'm thinking we should drop >> that word for all the downloads, WANdicso's and CollabNet's. > > The idea here is that these producers claim to be do something more than > just mere packaging -- IP checks, additional QA, or whatever. We've had > this discussion already, and as I remember it, the devs were fine with this > language so long as it was clear that it was the producers doing the > certification, not this community. (Especially since the definition of > "certification" likely differs from producer to producer.)
Right. There was also a suggestion to use "qualified" rather than "certified" since the latter does seem to imply that a set of certification rules exist. Given that this is the *project's* page, then there is an argument that we might somehow be defining those rules. I am +0 on switching to "qualified", and no opinion on current terminology. Cheers, -g ps. and yes, look at history; the old phrasing was *really* misleading, IMO; we're in a good/reasonable spot now tho tweaking per community is always a possibility