GNU Business Network Definition comments

Christian Schröder news at
Mon Jun 12 21:13:35 UTC 2006

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.

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

More information about the Discussion mailing list