On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:19:55AM +1000, Troy Rollo wrote:
On 5/7/05, Shachar Shemesh wine-devel@shemesh.biz wrote:
I really suggest we adhere to KISS - Keep It Simple.
In any case, the difficulty you have here is that anything you do that sets a barrier against the bad guys is also likely to set a barrier against the good guys.
...
If you ask the question "how can the WINE project stop some random company X from exploiting the situation unfairly", then perhaps hoops is a good idea.
If you ask the question "how can the WINE project get the maximum possible benefit from this", then hoops may not be a good idea, since the WINE project's interests lie in the largest possible pool of suppliers of services.
(Sorry about jumping in at the tail end of this discussion.)
I say that we should accept all good-faith requests for inclusion after a posting on wine-devel or a patch against the website on wine-patches. Of course, the page should have a disclaimer such as "Inclusion on this list does not constitute endorsement by WineHQ, its sponsors, or any Wine developer." I hope someone will visit the websites once in a while, and post another patch if the linked page obviously has nothing to do with Wine.
If the list gets big enough that it needs to be sorted, we could order it by lines-of-code-contributed, as suggested.
Alternately, we could order the list by the provider's net operating income (aka "Income from Operations"?) during their previous fiscal year, and stick everyone who can't/won't provide financial information at the end, alphabetically. This wouldn't obligate anyone to pay anything, of course, but it would seperate the serious *commercial* support (companies or individuals who pay atention to their own financial statements) from organizations that would be less prepared to deal with a lot of new business.
However, both of these ideas are just things to think about when the list gets longer.