[Members] Consultants

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Kurt, thanks for the dissenting opinion. I think you might be right, but
I don't have much time to ponder it further this week.

On 7/26/11 11:12 AM, Kurt Zeilenga wrote:
> While it seems I'm in the minority here, I'm actually against making
> consultant listing a perk of membership.
> 
> I think this will lead to folks requesting membership for the purpose
> of being listed, and then once listed, not perform their duties
> (vote!) as a member.  I fear such perks will lead to quorum
> problems.
> 
> I would rather that members only have one responsibility, to vote,
> and no other duties and perks.   I don't think persons otherwise
> participating in the community, such as any teams, ought to be
> required to become members, or that perks, such as belong listed as a
> consultant, be member only.
> 
> I also note that only individuals can be members… and many consulting
> firms are not sole proprietorships.  This can create some interesting
> issues.  It certainly means that we'd need to track which listing is
> due to which member(s) [more than one member could work for the
> consulting firm], so that we'd know when to delist a firm.   And what
> if a member is available through multiple consulting firms, is he
> allowed multiple listings?
> 
> Personally, I rather just have some wiki page that folks who provided
> consulting could add themselves too with a big "Buyer beware!"
> notice.
> 
> -- Kurt
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 26, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> 
>> I think most of my opinions below have been previously stated, but
>> I'll reply anyway (-:
>> 
>> On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:17, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> 
>>> I've been asked today for someone I can recommend for
>>> consultancy, again. As usual, my first step was to think of
>>> people I know whose skills fit, and who might be available, and
>>> it got me thinking...
>>> 
>>> 1) We have lists for clients, servers, and libraries - should we
>>> have one for consultants, too?
>>> 
>> 
>> Seems like a fine idea, as long as we have disclaimer language
>> (e.g. "these individuals are not endorsed or certified by the
>> XSF").
>> 
>>> 2) If we did, should this list be restricted to members who are
>>> available for consultancy? (A perk of membership, if you like).
>>> 
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> 3) Or, should we have a directory of members, which could list
>>> people as consultants, provide links to businesses and projects,
>>> as well as providing contact details for members?
>>> 
>> 
>> I think a separate opt-in list would make it clearer just who is
>> available for consulting work and who isn't.
>> 
>>> (FWIW, this was also partly sparked by my realisation that
>>> although I've an XSF group in my roster, it has only 35 people
>>> in, instead of everyone).
>> 
>> Sounds like we need shared rosters (-:
>> 
>> 
>> - m&m <http://goo.gl/voEzk>
>>