GNU Business Network Definition comments

[Christian Schröder]

Rudy Gevaert schrieb:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:07:13PM +0100, Sam Liddicott wrote:
>> To unite both types; I suggest "levels" or "types" of membership, those 
>> that have achieved the strictest aims of the organisation and those that 
>> are working towards it. In some cases those "working towards" may be 
>> working against internal momentum, the state of the market, or just 
>> idling. A check on the number of members in the same software sector 
>> with "purer" membership will differentiate
>> between those who find FSF virtues a matter of commercial expedience and 
>> those struggling against a real lack of choice.
> 
> I don't see how several (types or) levels will provide an incentive to
> reach a higher level.  
> 

You can make 2 levels and say in the description for the lower one, that
in fact it is wrong to stay in this level. It's like an msce which is a
degree, but if you talk about it everybody will laugh. But still you
need it to get the higher ones. So basically the lower level is more
like a declaration of the intent to become a good one.
I think we need a pure high standard in the end like the others
suggested. But to make it easier and to find more recognition there
should be a lower level, which will only be granted for a fixed time.
After that period you loose all rights to attain a low level grade. Of
course if you meet the pure standard you are welcome.
Something like that the key point for me is the loss of value through time.

regards
Christian
PS: first post, i hope it is not too bad :)