Send to list for filing.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: PRODUCTS REQUIRING CERTIFICATION Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 12:23:04 +0100 From: Rod Norman rod@openforumeurope.org To: Shane Martin Coughlan coughlan@fsfeurope.org CC: Bob Blatchford bob@openforumeurope.org, Graham Taylor graham@openforumeurope.org
Hi Shane - As the CO product has come alive again I am sending you details of the product requiring certification. I have also checked these over and added my comments:
Enterprise Metasearch (comcepta ag) - no justifications in the text boxes
GridSAM (University of Southampton) - Q9 has not been answered in the Software View - it doesn't make any difference to the rating though
Grimoires (University of Southampton) - Form completed satisfactorily
OpenOffice.org (The Open Learning Centre) - Form completed satisfactorily
Zimbra (London Connects) - Form completed satisfactorily - Please ignore the 2nd application - they had trouble with the timeout problem
Also, I have observed a number of companires that have registered but not applied their products for certification:
* AVG Transport Heijen BV * IBM UK Limited * Guerrilla Networkz * Orchard Information Systems Ltd. * CIRB * De Winter Information Solutions * BioXpr * P-Soft di Codebue Fabio & C. sas * Royal Haskoning * Openbravo * itics * Noel-Baker Community School
I can provide fuller details but the GNUE screen doesn't do 'select all' so I can provide a screenshot instead
Regards - Rod
Hi Ron
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: PRODUCTS REQUIRING CERTIFICATION Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 12:23:04 +0100 From: Rod Norman rod@openforumeurope.org Hi Shane - As the CO product has come alive again I am sending you details of the product requiring certification. I have also checked these over and added my comments:
Thank you very much. I will look at this material tomorrow. :)
Shane
Hi Rod
Thanks for the information.
Enterprise Metasearch (comcepta ag) - no justifications in the text boxes
We should contact them and tell them to fill out the text boxes.
GridSAM (University of Southampton) - Q9 has not been answered in the Software View - it doesn't make any difference to the rating though
We should contact them and tell them to complete the rating. I notice that they also filled out all the views in the framework.
Grimoires (University of Southampton) - Form completed satisfactorily
Looks complete.
OpenOffice.org (The Open Learning Centre) - Form completed satisfactorily
Their answer to question five may not be correct. "optional Java included for some extra features, but Java is now GPL"
I'm not sure if 100% of Java is now available as GPL software. We'd need to check this.
Zimbra (London Connects) - Form completed satisfactorily - Please ignore the 2nd application - they had trouble with the timeout problem
Looks complete, but some questions: Q3 is about accessibility. They state full conformance. I believe discussed this before, but are there not formal guidelines for accessibility conformance in Europe? The submitter in this case suggests that because the application runs in a browser it fully conforms. I doubt this is the case.
Answers like "Q09 Can the product be modified by the user?" raise a question: does the hosted version of the product - the version used in practice by London - have features or other aspects that are different from the Free Software non-hosted version?
If so, the score should be different.
Answer to Q17 also raises questions. "Zimbra themselves and over 300 partners provide support" does not automatically mean that the other partners are in a position to offer top tier support.
Also, I have observed a number of companires that have registered but not applied their products for certification: * AVG Transport Heijen BV * IBM UK Limited * Guerrilla Networkz * Orchard Information Systems Ltd. * CIRB * De Winter Information Solutions * BioXpr * P-Soft di Codebue Fabio & C. sas * Royal Haskoning * Openbravo * itics * Noel-Baker Community School I can provide fuller details but the GNUE screen doesn't do 'select all' so I can provide a screenshot instead
Do you think we should prompt these people to certify?
We also need to quickly clarify who contacts the submitters if there are questions. For instance, as I mentioned above, there are some areas where we could do with clarification on the existing submissions.
Shane
Just coming back to this information in the context of our process document, as circulated by Bob earlier in the week.
Shane Coughlan wrote:
Enterprise Metasearch (comcepta ag) - no justifications in the text boxes
We should contact them and tell them to fill out the text boxes.
According process, Rob would contact the submitter.
GridSAM (University of Southampton) - Q9 has not been answered in the Software View - it doesn't make any difference to the rating though
We should contact them and tell them to complete the rating. I notice that they also filled out all the views in the framework.
According process, Rob would contact the submitter.
Grimoires (University of Southampton) - Form completed satisfactorily
Looks complete.
According process, I would review.
OpenOffice.org (The Open Learning Centre) - Form completed satisfactorily
Their answer to question five may not be correct. "optional Java included for some extra features, but Java is now GPL"
I'm not sure if 100% of Java is now available as GPL software. We'd need to check this.
According process, I would review.
Zimbra (London Connects) - Form completed satisfactorily - Please ignore the 2nd application - they had trouble with the timeout problem
Looks complete, but some questions: Q3 is about accessibility. They state full conformance. I believe discussed this before, but are there not formal guidelines for accessibility conformance in Europe? The submitter in this case suggests that because the application runs in a browser it fully conforms. I doubt this is the case.
Answers like "Q09 Can the product be modified by the user?" raise a question: does the hosted version of the product - the version used in practice by London - have features or other aspects that are different from the Free Software non-hosted version?
If so, the score should be different.
Answer to Q17 also raises questions. "Zimbra themselves and over 300 partners provide support" does not automatically mean that the other partners are in a position to offer top tier support.
According process, I would review.
Also, I have observed a number of companires that have registered but not applied their products for certification: * AVG Transport Heijen BV * IBM UK Limited * Guerrilla Networkz * Orchard Information Systems Ltd. * CIRB * De Winter Information Solutions * BioXpr * P-Soft di Codebue Fabio & C. sas * Royal Haskoning * Openbravo * itics * Noel-Baker Community School I can provide fuller details but the GNUE screen doesn't do 'select all' so I can provide a screenshot instead
Do you think we should prompt these people to certify? We also need to quickly clarify who contacts the submitters if there are questions. For instance, as I mentioned above, there are some areas where we could do with clarification on the existing submissions.
A quick question; are the submitter contact details on the website? I have three submissions where I need to contact people. :)
Shane
See updates: - ROD
-----Original Message----- From: co-steering-bounces@certifiedopen.com [mailto:co-steering-bounces@certifiedopen.com] On Behalf Of Shane Martin Coughlan Sent: 23 May 2008 18:18 To: Certified Open Steering Group List Subject: Re: PRODUCTS REQUIRING CERTIFICATION
Just coming back to this information in the context of our process document, as circulated by Bob earlier in the week.
Shane Coughlan wrote:
Enterprise Metasearch (comcepta ag) - no justifications in the text boxes
We should contact them and tell them to fill out the text boxes.
According process, Rob would contact the submitter.
ROD Norman wrote: - I have already contacted the submitter on 21-11-2007 and have had no response. Please advise
GridSAM (University of Southampton) - Q9 has not been answered in the Software View - it doesn't make any difference to the rating though
We should contact them and tell them to complete the rating. I notice that they also filled out all the views in the framework.
According process, Rob would contact the submitter.
ROD Norman wrote - I have contacted them to complete the rating and am awaiting a response
Grimoires (University of Southampton) - Form completed satisfactorily
Looks complete.
According process, I would review.
OpenOffice.org (The Open Learning Centre) - Form completed satisfactorily
Their answer to question five may not be correct. "optional Java included for some extra features, but Java is now GPL"
I'm not sure if 100% of Java is now available as GPL software. We'd need to check this.
According process, I would review.
Zimbra (London Connects) - Form completed satisfactorily - Please ignore the 2nd application - they had trouble with the timeout problem
Looks complete, but some questions: Q3 is about accessibility. They state full conformance. I believe discussed this before, but are there not formal guidelines for accessibility conformance in Europe? The submitter in this case suggests that because the application runs in a browser it fully conforms. I doubt this is the case.
Answers like "Q09 Can the product be modified by the user?" raise a question: does the hosted version of the product - the version used in practice by London - have features or other aspects that are different from the Free Software non-hosted version?
If so, the score should be different.
Answer to Q17 also raises questions. "Zimbra themselves and over 300 partners provide support" does not automatically mean that the other partners are in a position to offer top tier support.
According process, I would review.
Also, I have observed a number of companires that have registered but not applied their products for certification: * AVG Transport Heijen BV * IBM UK Limited * Guerrilla Networkz * Orchard Information Systems Ltd. * CIRB * De Winter Information Solutions * BioXpr * P-Soft di Codebue Fabio & C. sas * Royal Haskoning * Openbravo * itics * Noel-Baker Community School I can provide fuller details but the GNUE screen doesn't do 'select all' so I can provide a screenshot instead
Do you think we should prompt these people to certify? We also need to quickly clarify who contacts the submitters if there are questions. For instance, as I mentioned above, there are some areas where we could do with clarification on the existing submissions.
A quick question; are the submitter contact details on the website? I have three submissions where I need to contact people. :)
ROD Norman wrote: - The submitter details are on the website
Shane
Hi Rod
Rod Norman wrote:
Grimoires (University of Southampton) - Form completed satisfactorily
Looks complete.
According process, I would review.
I have contacted them.
OpenOffice.org (The Open Learning Centre) - Form completed satisfactorily
Their answer to question five may not be correct. "optional Java included for some extra features, but Java is now GPL"
I'm not sure if 100% of Java is now available as GPL software. We'd need to check this.
According process, I would review.
I have contacted them.
Zimbra (London Connects) - Form completed satisfactorily - Please ignore the 2nd application - they had trouble with the timeout problem
Looks complete, but some questions:
According process, I would review.
I have reviewed. However, the only contact provided on the website is for support@zimbra.com rather than London Connects. Does anyone have the London Connects contact information?
Shane
Rod Norman wrote:
Shane Coughlan wrote:
Enterprise Metasearch (comcepta ag) - no justifications in the text boxes
We should contact them and tell them to fill out the text boxes.
According process, Rob would contact the submitter.
ROD Norman wrote: - I have already contacted the submitter on 21-11-2007 and have had no response. Please advise
I suppose our only option is to attempt to contact them again, and if this does not work to delete their submission.
Regards
Shane