On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:13:56 +0200 Shane Martin Coughlan coughlan@fsfeurope.org wrote:
smc> I think it needs to relate to a product rather than vendor. Some smc> vendors support community projects (Fedora) and deploy purely smc> commercial products (RHEL). Red Hat would need to be able to get smc> both certified. One would qualify as a community project. The smc> other would be charged.
smc> Board, does this sound correct?
It sounds good to me.
Of course I am happy to implement any decision you take on this, but let me express that I explicitly recommend against this. For me personally, this would be a reason to not register my community project (if I had one to register).
smc> I don't think we should need to go through payment processes to smc> register a community project. Is it possible that a community smc> project could select 'community' and this would bypass the payment smc> process?
I agree this would be the best idea.
Not exactly. A process like this would not more complicated in the software:
- Allow account registration to everybody
- Allow product registration to everybody with an account
- Hold back certification approval until
(a) payment is done or (b) product is approved as "community project" (the holding back would of course happen automatically, i.e. products with missing payments simply aren't listed on the list of products to approve)
and we also solve the problem with the fake payment for community projects with this.
smc> I think this sounds good. Can we do this? Board, do you agree?
Yes.
Regards, Georg