I think what it shows is the reason its very very hard selling to governments. All it takes is one person to kick up a stink like a bitter vendor and the governments procurement processes become a politcal issue, fairly or unfairly. This is why governments avoid taking risks even when its clearly a better solution. For anyone thats tried to sell to government and wondered why they have these really long painful tendering, preselected vendors etc that "attempt" to avoid any vendor/technology bias, this is why. You won't often find tenders that state a technology specifically unless its "beyond reproach" like "microsoft".

My question is, what was in the tender requirements that a Plone solution was going to cost 750K?

Another take home idea from this: if your government is putting out tenders that exclude opensource and Plone specifically, creating waves can get results. Especially if you can link it to jobs going elsewhere.


On 18/12/2009, at 6:13 PM, Matt Hamilton wrote:

Mark,
What is the best way of us handling this? That article makes some harsh comments about Plone. If Plone were some large corporate I would imagine that lawyers would be swinging into action now.

Do we want to publish some kind of official statement in response? Or privately contact that newspaper and ask them to retract their comment. It is a quote though so I don't know legal standing. Or do we just keep our head down and not draw attention to it?

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/local-firm-to-start-city-web-site-redesign-129437.html

-Matt



_______________________________________________
Evangelism mailing list
Evangelism@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/evangelism


_______________________________________________
Evangelism mailing list
Evangelism@lists.plone.org
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/evangelism

Reply via email to