Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > The link off the main page is entitled "Organizations Providing > Software, Hardware or Services". The word "Services" (at least to me) > includes consulting. So do we want to include consulting services in > this list, or make a separate list and (hopefully) adjust the title of > the first?
Mumble. Fair question but probably instead calls for changing the existing 'services' term. The intent for that existing page is about "products". "Services" means online services, as in service providers. I think something like "region" is a good indication that the "consulting' entries have a basic difference. (And in case I didn't mumble loud enough: Foo!) Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > [Is this really appropriate for ietf-dkim?] I couldn't decide on exactly the right venue, which is why I chose 2. The Interop list is great, but I thought it too limited a distribution for discussing this larger question. > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Dotzero wrote: > It of course also brings up the question of reputation. If we end up > listing a bunch of consultants whose work leaves something to be desired, > dkim.org won't be considered a good source of such information... I view this as more a matter of percentages. No list is perfect. Is this list still a good idea if 10% of the listings are for consultants who perform poorly? I would think so? What about 50%? 75? 90? I don't know where the cut-off is. Basically, my thought is to create the list, let it get populated, let it get used, and see how useful folks feel it is. At some point, I fully expect a sense of rough consensus, one way or the other. > Talk about eating our own dog food! Well, it's true that this might be a dog of an idea... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
