<quote name="Matthew Walker" date="2013-10-01" time="12:32:08 -0700"> > > the org has permission to use the MediaWiki name/logo/domains > > Name and Logo sure -- but why domains? This shouldn't be an exclusive > thing; we should not be moving towards having only one shop offering this > service. Maybe the WMF could have some sort of 'partners' program that > handled licensing.
only if domain includes the trademark, of course. > > > MediaWiki documentation endorses the organization doing the > > hosting/support (need general consensus with the developers, many but not > > all of whom are WMF employees) > > I don't think I can express how much I loathe organizations that do this. > Varnish and Adiscon (rsyslog) are two offenders that come to mind. It seems > to create an ecosystem where a new user assumes they must use the hosting > provider for an install. And/or that any new features the vendor develops > can be locked away and never documented except very sketchily in code. I > don't mind having a page on mediawiki.org that would say something along > the lines of 'if you dont want to host yourself...' but otherwise I feel > the documentation / main site should be kept as neutral as possible. I wanted to chime in here: The idea that Brion expressed, I believe, is what we were going for with the public RFP for the MW Release Management work. It showed community support and something to point at (by anyone) if a weird decision was made (or interpreted as such). So, maybe the default install doc shouldn't say "Step 1: Create account at $Prefered_Vendor" but we can definitely have "known good vendors" listed somewhere... (just my personal opinion, not that my professional one should be taken as anymore more than that either, really) Greg -- | Greg Grossmeier GPG: B2FA 27B1 F7EB D327 6B8E | | identi.ca: @greg A18D 1138 8E47 FAC8 1C7D | _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
