On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 11:33:36AM +0200, David Gümbel wrote:
So I'd suggest listing anyone who can prove he has contributed to Wine in whatever way - making a donation, having contributed code, whatever - , and let the customers decide whom to select for their particular problem.
Yes, I think being inclusive is better.
However, I also think that we need to pick the rules carefully so we don't set up a bad precedent when half the world will be using Wine :). So here is what I propose: 1. The list should be capped to n entries (n=50, 100?) 2. It should be kept up to date, and refreshed at least yearly 3. Any list has an order by definition, this one should be ranked by how much each company benefits the project.
Notes: - Rule (1) doesn't mean much now, but it may in the future if we get flooded with requests for listing - Rule (2) seems everyone agrees with. I suggest a token monetary fee that should go towards hosting the WineHQ site. - Rule (3) is the most tricky of all. But please realise that we should be talking from the project's perspective here (we are talking about WineHQ site), not our own commercial perspective. It is fundamental that things are fair to encourage future cooperation, and that is the one and most important thing from the project POV. And yes, code contributions are not the only thing. Regardless, it is not difficult to rank. Here is what I suggest: * company makes a request for linking by submitting a patch to the appropriate page on wine-patches. If they don't know how to do that, they may ask someone for help, but the patch should be posted on the list before it can go in. * if there are any disagreements as to the proposed order, we can ask for a quick vote on the list. Each vote will include the rank the voter gives to the listings. An average of the vote should determine the rank. Please check out "Wisdom of Crowds" why this works very well. In any event, I don't think there is that much of a problem to come up with a ranking at the time being.