On 15 Oct 2014, at 13:34 , Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> wrote:
> couch.io comes back? wouldn't it cause creation yet another couchbase? > or what should ensure people in that? Well, we have branding guidelines in the works as well. People won’t be able to use *couch* in their offering’s names. > -- > ,,,^..^,,, > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> Heya Marketingers, >> >> one of the things I keep noticing in the field is that people and companies >> decide against using CouchDB because there are no professional services or >> support offerings. >> >> My main objective is showing that CouchDB is a viable solution and that >> commercial services are being catered to. >> >> Of course there is Cloudant, but there are enough scenarios where that’s not >> an option. >> >> Also of course, there are a number of people and companies that offer >> services for CouchDB, e.g. Benoit. >> >> I think it’d be a great boost for the project if the main website (or >> sub-page) would have a direct pointer to the various offerings that exist so >> end users get a feel for how good they can be taken care of, if needed. >> >> Say we all agree that it’s a good idea*, there are a few open questions: >> - who decides which offerings get listed? >> - what would be a rule or guideline for refusing an entry? >> - how do we deal with offers that turn out not to be so good after all? >> - how can we avoid a “first come first serve” rush to offer something first? >> - etc. >> >> *If* we are going anywhere, I think we should look at other Apache projects >> and other open source projects and come up with guidelines that answer the >> above questions (and the ones you come up with :) >> >> >> *- If we don’t agree that’s a good idea, that’s also fine, I just wanted to >> get a discussion around this going :) >> >> What do you think? >> >> Best >> Jan >> -- >> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
