couchdb-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Linking to Professional Services
Date Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:10:41 GMT

On 15 Oct 2014, at 14:34 , Andy Wenk <andywenk@apache.org> 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 <jan@apache.org> 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


Mime
View raw message