On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Italo Vignoli <email@example.com> wrote:
Robert Ryley wrote:
Can you explain to me how "competence" can be assessed in the absence
of a clearly defined specification? Can you also clarify why to you
think that the TDF is competent to make that decision, instead of
leaving it up to a discussion between potential buyers and vendors?
I do not think that a discussion between two completely different views
is of any benefit for the project. You have all the rights to criticize
my views, but I have the rights to consider your views as wrong.
So, you have no answers to any of my observations, but feel
"competent" to declare that "certification"
will solve the problem?
The future will tell if you are right or I am right. TDF Certification
is a challenge, based on 7 years of experience inside the OOo project
and endless discussions with third parties who find it difficult to sell
their services because they are not certified.
Anyone familiar with sales management knows the rough and ready rule
that 80% of sales are generated by 20% of the sales
force. Over the past decade, it has gotten worse if you listen to
sales traner Michael Bosworth, with 87% of sales productivity
generated by 13% of the sales force.
If you are the least bit interest in technology sales, this podcast
interview of Mr. Bosworth, a widely recognized sales trainer is
People are always looking for crutches, and "certification" is yet
another. Management consulting has no certifications, but competent
members in that field have no trouble generating business.
I am not saying that this is the best possible option, but is an option
while dreaming about an independent organization created by potential
buyers and vendors is just a dream which I have heard many times.
All I'm asking is who decided that the TDF is competent to judge
competence? All I can see is that it is a self asserted judgement.
Why can't the organization simply support the codebase and encourage
the development of extensions, and stay out of the "competence
assessment" business? What does any of that have to do with providing
an alternative to proprietary software? Why can't it be clear on
whose interest it supports, because it can't honestly support *both.*
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
- Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Article on Datamation website: "How Microsoft Office Tops LibreOffice: 11 Features" (continued)
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy