On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 16:20, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 04:13 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
>> On 10/13/2010 12:26 PM, hwright_at_apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: hwright
>>> Date: Wed Oct 13 19:26:49 2010
>>> New Revision: 1022250
>>>
>>
>>> +<li><p><a href="http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/os/downloads">
>>> + WANdisco</a> (professionally supported and certified by
>>
>> What do we mean that it's been "certified". I'm thinking we should drop
>> that word for all the downloads, WANdicso's and CollabNet's.
>
> The idea here is that these producers claim to be do something more than
> just mere packaging -- IP checks, additional QA, or whatever. We've had
> this discussion already, and as I remember it, the devs were fine with this
> language so long as it was clear that it was the producers doing the
> certification, not this community. (Especially since the definition of
> "certification" likely differs from producer to producer.)
Right.
There was also a suggestion to use "qualified" rather than "certified"
since the latter does seem to imply that a set of certification rules
exist. Given that this is the *project's* page, then there is an
argument that we might somehow be defining those rules.
I am +0 on switching to "qualified", and no opinion on current terminology.
Cheers,
-g
ps. and yes, look at history; the old phrasing was *really*
misleading, IMO; we're in a good/reasonable spot now tho tweaking per
community is always a possibility
Received on 2010-10-14 11:25:16 CEST