On 15 Oct 2014, at 14:34 , Andy Wenk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jan, > > I personally think it's a good idea. The questions you raised are the ones > we have to answer. My comments inline. > > On 15 October 2014 13:38, 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? >> > > if we restrict it - I think it should be reviewed / tested by a group of > people (review team?) and approve in consensus. > > >>>> - what would be a rule or guideline for refusing an entry? >> > > if the before mentioned group has objections concerning: > > * general quality of the service / product > * not following the branding and trademark rules > * not clear who the people are behind the service > * "black hat" people at the service > > >>>> - how do we deal with offers that turn out not to be so good after all? >> > > that's a hard question. Because of that, I proposed the review team above. > The service should be tested and granted for good. Maybe we say "after our > review and at this moment we think this is a good service. But we reserve > the right to remove the service at a later point if it comes to our > attention, that the service has become bad" or sth. like this. I think you > get the idea. So this goes a bit in a "CouchDB approved service" > certificate or sth. similar. > > >>>> - how can we avoid a “first come first serve” rush to offer something >> first? >>>> - etc. >> > > If I understand correctly I would like to ask, why there should be first > come first serve at all? If there are more similar services, why not adding > them all?
Heh, sorry, this wasn’t clearly expressed. I meant that we should list all of them, but who get’s to be on top of the list? (simple list randomisation per request would do, I just wanted to bring this up here :) Jan -- > > So the list above does maybe miss one point: > > - who is going to test the service? > > >>>> >>>> *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 :) >> > > +1 > > >>>> >>>> >>>> *- 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? >> > > Basically a very great idea imho. > > Cheers > > Andy > > -- > Andy Wenk > Hamburg - Germany > RockIt! > > GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588 > > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
