On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Vendors/solutions should be chosen *first* by meeting specifications/requirements, then among the qualified candidates choose the most cost-effective solution.
That's what the different stages of government procurement are actually implementing: there's a pre-qualification stage, where only those that meet the specifications can qualify to bid.
This I think is where we have a fundamental disagreement: I would like OpenOffice to choose a default because it's alright for the authors of OpenOffice to choose a default for me -- but I have a problem with government choosing a default BY LAW for every government agency on blanket policy.
That's the government's prerogative! It doesn't dictate how private institutions should decide on their software procurement.
I am saying, there should be no default, and the choice be made on a case to case basis.
You'd be promoting the status quo, then. The bill, in effect, defines guidelines and policies for government's software procurement. When you do it on a "case-to-case" basis, agencies, as they are wont to do, will just go for the default, which at this time is proprietary software. -- Ian Dexter R. Marquez http://iandexter.net | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (XMPP) _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
