On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 05:37:15PM +0100, Tobias Toedter wrote: > There has been much discussion about the requirement of a link back to > www.d.o on the consultant's website. Just to make this absolutely clear: No > consultant will be required to *operate* a website and to link back to > Debian. However, if they list an URL, there should be some text about the > consultants work and the aforementioned link to www.d.o. For example, take > a look at <http://www.brahy.com/>. This surely isn't a website that should > be linked from the consultants webpage.
Heh. That may be so, but you still need to come up with a better way of pointing this out. > 3. Website > If an URL is provided, the consultant must mention their Debian-related > work on the website. The Debian distribution must be mentioned > explicitly, together with a link to www.debian.org. There was clearly no consensus that this is an acceptable position to take, and you should not take it. If you feel strongly that sites like the one you mentioned above should not be listed, then maybe you could: * point out that a URL need not be provided * request that URLs that are provided link to a site which contains at least some description of the consulting service offered * /suggest/ that explicit mention of Debian and a link to www.debian.org would be appreciated You will get far better results this way. There is no way on earth that a large professional company is going to change their website just because you are going to remove them from this list if they don't. A polite request is more likely to get the desired response. And besides, as discussed before, it is perfectly possible that they have a reasonable reason for not mentioning Debian explicitly, but are still able to provide an excellent service to *our users*. You do remember what the bloody list is there for, don't you? Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
