On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 05:24:36AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> 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.
I guess "certified" is mainly used for marketing reasons, rather than technical
reasons. So we might hit resistance trying to get the terminology changed.
We could require those who want to list "certified" binaries on our
binary packages page to also provide a link to a page explaining who
certified the binaries, and how. This would prevent misunderstandings.
Stefan
Received on 2010-10-14 12:19:09 CEST