On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Italo Vignoli <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Ryley wrote: > >> Can you explain to me how "competence" can be assessed in the absence >> of a clearly defined specification? Can you also clarify why to you >> think that the TDF is competent to make that decision, instead of >> leaving it up to a discussion between potential buyers and vendors? > > I do not think that a discussion between two completely different views > is of any benefit for the project. You have all the rights to criticize > my views, but I have the rights to consider your views as wrong.
So, you have no answers to any of my observations, but feel "competent" to declare that "certification" will solve the problem? > The future will tell if you are right or I am right. TDF Certification > is a challenge, based on 7 years of experience inside the OOo project > and endless discussions with third parties who find it difficult to sell > their services because they are not certified. Anyone familiar with sales management knows the rough and ready rule that 80% of sales are generated by 20% of the sales force. Over the past decade, it has gotten worse if you listen to sales traner Michael Bosworth, with 87% of sales productivity generated by 13% of the sales force. If you are the least bit interest in technology sales, this podcast interview of Mr. Bosworth, a widely recognized sales trainer is valuable: http://www.esresearch.com/e/home/document.php?dA=Mike_Bosworth_1 People are always looking for crutches, and "certification" is yet another. Management consulting has no certifications, but competent members in that field have no trouble generating business. > I am not saying that this is the best possible option, but is an option > while dreaming about an independent organization created by potential > buyers and vendors is just a dream which I have heard many times. All I'm asking is who decided that the TDF is competent to judge competence? All I can see is that it is a self asserted judgement. Why can't the organization simply support the codebase and encourage the development of extensions, and stay out of the "competence assessment" business? What does any of that have to do with providing an alternative to proprietary software? Why can't it be clear on whose interest it supports, because it can't honestly support *both.* -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
