Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I did intend for it to be read as /any/ commercial entity. This is bad juju. If that company suffers misfourtune, it may put a bad spin on Perl. While we are appointing individuals (and not companies) to the posts, the individual is also tied to, or associated with a particular company. In most instances (anything not involving contact with commercial entities), this is either much less of, or not a problem. When we're talking about "Customer Relations" - which has been described as commercial entities - it occurs to me that the Perl community needs a neutral party. This person doesn't even need to interact with the end customer, they only need to collect information from those persons who directly interact with Customers. This offers a two-fold bonus. First, we get a wider range of Customer feedback. If someone isn't doing business with the company that the Official Spokesperson works for, their voice will go unheard. If many Perl Support companies are listening to their client's needs, and funnel them back in, we hear a much wider range. --dsp (ps. and yes, I get pretty pedantic when there is unfair competitive advantage given (expressly or incidentally). business is hard enough without needing to try and compete with another who's just been handed a few of the Crown Jewels.) Michael G Schwern wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 04:53:23AM -0400, Dave Paris wrote: > > While I agree that Dick Hardt would probably do an excellent job as > > Customer Relations, he is also inextricably linked to ActiveState Tool > > Corp. > > > > My fear is that Dick, as the "official" Customer Relations contact - and > > therefore ActiveState, would be given an unwritten endorsement as the > > 'official' (although not truly so) Perl Support Company. > > Do you have similar issues with brian d foy being official > spokesperson for perl6 (he is a partner at an NYC consulting company)? > What if Randal or Tom Christiansen, both heads of Perl consulting > companies, was the customer relations guy? Would you be concerned of > the advantage it would give to their companies? Would it be wrong > that they got an advantage out of it? TANSTAAFL works both ways. > Free software developers don't really work for free. We DO get > something out of it (and you thought it was just for the t-shirts.) > > What I'm getting at is, is it because Dick is the head of a Perl > company that bothers you, or because he's head of ActiveState (ie. a > "large" Perl company) in particular? [..]Thread Previous | Thread Next