On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:17:20PM -0400, MRock wrote:
> In defense of Certification Inc. They are not untrustworthy.
I don't want to suggest this as an issue unless it is one. However, I
would like to comment. We had experience a while back with another
testing/training company who wanted us to use their facility instead of
PricewaterhouseCoopers. They pressured us (me) rather heavily to move
meeting places, and intimated a quid pro quo for doing so. They were
talking about giving us discounts for moving, etc.
We don't do quid pro quos. In the interest of keeping SLUG "free of
commercial influence", the most we'll do is put up a link to a company
on our "Sponsors" page. And only then if they contribute significantly
to the group (as with Owl River, NKS, or the various Linux distro
companies).
Likewise, if commercial companies give presentations at meetings, I
don't mind them mentioning they're from X company and this is what they
can do for Linux. Great. But I don't want them hanging around meetings
and badgering people about their company and services.
Again, let me emphasize that I'm not accusing Cert Inc. of doing any of
this. I'm only pointing out that it's something we need to avoid in
general, should it arise.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:14:59 EDT