[OSGeo-Discuss] Proposal for the listing of projects in our new web site

[Jeffrey Johnson]

JeffM,

It seems you are making a leap from asking service providers how big they
are to this alienating them or somehow excluding ones of a certain size
(big or small it's not clear). Can you explain the thoughts behind your
argument here? I think the rest of us are saying that everyone should be
included and that being small is often a strength.

Thanks everyone for speaking up!

Jeff


On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:06 andrea antonello <andrea.antonello at gmail.com>
wrote:

> As member of a mini-micro-company, I will also add my 2 cents.
>
> [...]
> > From the standpoint of an organization looking for a provider, size may
> also
> > be important, a larger company
> > typically has a better financial footing (mandatory in certain types of
> > contracts), and possibly a more diversified experience
> > among its ranks. Also, it might happen that the customer is looking for a
> > certain experience with the provider
> > (e.g, matching or getting closer to its own size, or looking for the more
> > industrial vs the more "boutique"
> > approach).
> > So... what about reporting the size of the company among the other
> > information, even if it is
> > not the primary classifier? The size could be reported as classes to
> lessen
> > the chore of maintaing such
> > information (e.g, "1-5", "5-20", "20-50", "50+", just thinking out loud
> > here)
>
> I agree with Andrea. I do not feel alienated due to the size of my
> company. In fact many times the size is a choice and it might even be
> a positive factor for certain scenarios.
>
> I like the classes approach proposed here.
>
> Cheers,
> Andrea
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20170822/3eface40/attachment.html>