On what basis do we remove vendors from our distribution list?
2008/8/30 Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com:
On what basis do we remove vendors from our distribution list?
That's my opinion:
1) Active or inactive vendors (are the versions they are shipping the newest or are they solding FC3?)
2) Are they applying a "high" prize (all we know the cost of media production and the earning from each CD/DVD distributed)
I don't know if those criteria could fit your request, personally I think those are the first two ones I take care of.
Regards
Francesco Ugolini
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 00:36 +0200, Francesco Ugolini wrote:
2008/8/30 Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com:
On what basis do we remove vendors from our distribution list?
That's my opinion:
- Active or inactive vendors (are the versions they are shipping the
newest or are they solding FC3?)
- Are they applying a "high" prize (all we know the cost of media
production and the earning from each CD/DVD distributed)
What about vendors that generate complaints from customers?
agree with that and also what about vendors that are doing over priced distribution of the media, as a previous post said that we all know the price of media these days.
also just a idea, i have thought of though, is why don't we also put in a information/fact sheet of fedora, ie about of its history and where its going and a few url's on the sheet(printed of course) and if they are ambassadors put in there fedora business card as well, in case they need some support of help. just a marketing idea thought it might go well.
What about vendors that generate complaints from customers?
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 00:36 +0200, Francesco Ugolini wrote:
2008/8/30 Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com:
On what basis do we remove vendors from our distribution list?
- Are they applying a "high" prize (all we know the cost of media
production and the earning from each CD/DVD distributed)
-1
If you really think that someone is overcharging for duplication and shipping then do what people have been doing for, well, a very long time: compete. Let the market decide who to buy from, not the supplier.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On what basis do we remove vendors from our distribution list?
Looking at the various replies. Without knowing the actual complaint(s). It's difficult, to make a judgement.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/OnlineVendors "Remember, we do reserve the right to refuse or modify any listing at any time and for any reason."
1: As it's the Fedora "Brand", an apology as appropriate. (!) Reasoning, the vendor is acting on behalf of Fedora, Remember IANAL.
(2) Can replacement media be sent via freemedia? contact Thomas
(3) More Info please, on issues that are important and that can affect Fedora, don't ask for blind decisions. (!) I know the question wouldn't have been asked if not deemed necessary, but notwithstanding.....the jury hasn't been to court.
Frank
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On what basis do we remove vendors from our distribution list?
They enjoy their presence on the list at the pleasure of the FPL or other Ambassadors/Marketing leadership.
If they are misbehaving, just remove them. IMHO, no need for a committee discussion on this item.
--Max
Max Spevack wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Paul W. Frields wrote:
They enjoy their presence on the list at the pleasure of the FPL or other Ambassadors/Marketing leadership.
If they are misbehaving, just remove them. IMHO, no need for a committee discussion on this item.
Agreed, but would be nice to know if it was a scratched cd, or fraud. How it affects Fedora overall?
Get a bad car, who gets the shoulder.
Frank
They enjoy their presence on the list at the pleasure of the FPL or other Ambassadors/Marketing leadership.
If they are misbehaving, just remove them. IMHO, no need for a committee discussion on this item.
Agreed, but would be nice to know if it was a scratched cd, or fraud. How it affects Fedora overall?
I agree to this idea.
Like Max said, there's no need to ask a committee if we can remove them. But when removing, we should notify someone somewhere at least for traceability.
A bit like what I could see from the last weeks I spent in #fedora-ops
When an op wants to ban someone, he does. And he notifies others ops in #fedora-ops. This way, we all know that person A was banned, why he was, if we should also ban him from other chans, etc... We can then discuss the decision if we want, but there's no need to.
Something like that could be good for distributors too. For example, if a distributor comes to complain to me to discuss his removal, I have all infos to explain him the decision of his removal.
Regards,
----------
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) French Fedora Ambassador
---------- "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 15:07 +0200, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote:
They enjoy their presence on the list at the pleasure of the FPL or other Ambassadors/Marketing leadership.
If they are misbehaving, just remove them. IMHO, no need for a committee discussion on this item.
Agreed, but would be nice to know if it was a scratched cd, or fraud. How it affects Fedora overall?
I agree to this idea.
Like Max said, there's no need to ask a committee if we can remove them. But when removing, we should notify someone somewhere at least for traceability.
A bit like what I could see from the last weeks I spent in #fedora-ops
When an op wants to ban someone, he does. And he notifies others ops in #fedora-ops. This way, we all know that person A was banned, why he was, if we should also ban him from other chans, etc... We can then discuss the decision if we want, but there's no need to.
Something like that could be good for distributors too. For example, if a distributor comes to complain to me to discuss his removal, I have all infos to explain him the decision of his removal.
Since the vendor in question hasn't responded to my attempt (or the customer's attempts) to contact them, I'm happy to note it here publicly now:
LinuxOnline.biz apparently shipped a customer a Fedora CD set in which the media will not verify in any of the customer's systems. Beyond that, the customer claims to have tried to contact the vendor repeatedly with no response. I've tried contacting the vendor as well with no response.
Note that I apparently don't have any access to edit the Distribution/ hierarchy on the wiki, so someone will need to remove this vendor for me.
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Sun, 2008-08-31 at 15:07 +0200, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote:
Since the vendor in question hasn't responded to my attempt (or the customer's attempts) to contact them, I'm happy to note it here publicly now:
LinuxOnline.biz apparently shipped a customer a Fedora CD set in which the media will not verify in any of the customer's systems. Beyond that, the customer claims to have tried to contact the vendor repeatedly with no response. I've tried contacting the vendor as well with no response.
Note that I apparently don't have any access to edit the Distribution/ hierarchy on the wiki, so someone will need to remove this vendor for me.
Has the customer received replacement mediu from Fedora? If not send me his details off-list. Free-Media hat.
Frank
There should be a clear owner - perhaps FAmSCo (they are already supposed to be the public face) or something similar - that makes decisions about pulling people from the list. And $owner should be identified on the page so people know who to complain to. If there isn't a clear owner things are going to be escalated to you continually. But to more clearly answer the question - a listing should be removed if it the "recommendation" (even though it isn't one) is causing Fedora's reputation to be sullied, or Fedora users to experience grief. Perhaps it can be rectified by a call from someone within the Fedora project, perhaps not.
2008/8/30 Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com:
On what basis do we remove vendors from our distribution list?
-- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
2008/8/30 Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com:
On what basis do we remove vendors from our distribution list?
Do we have a Grievience Cell for dealing with customer dissatisfaction?
Vendors should clearly state the quality of the media being used. We also need to distinguish between those who do it for excessive profit and those who do not. The courier/postal charges needs to be fixed too.
The rate for Indian vendors should be set at say
=<2 DVDs - Rs. 20 Courier - Rs 30 SpeedPost -Rs 25
For larger orders standard discount rates should apply.
Vendors should also indicate their duplication capabilities. People who can pay for large quantities of media for use in install fests and such should be able to locate them easily.
Best
A. Mani
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Mani A a.mani.cms@gmail.com wrote:
Vendors should clearly state the quality of the media being used.
I do not agree with this. I think vendors should be required to have a stated warranty on the media to be listed. Individual customers can choose vendors based on the terms of the competing warranties and on quality by doing the comparison shopping on their own. I think its very inappropriate for "the project" to get into the business of ranking individual vendors. If they have a warranty on media, and abide by the terms of that warranty then that is what matters. If they aren't abiding by the terms of the warranty they offer customers, then they get pulled of the list.
I do not think we are equipped to make a media quality assessment in any substantial way. It's not like we are going to be pulling random samples from their service and doing the quality assurance testing ourselves. Bad media happens, even when using media vendors who are thought to have statistically few problems with their media products. When bad media happens we must rely on the vendors to stand behind the terms of the warranty statements in place at the time of sale. If they can't live up to the warranty statements then they get booted from our list. At the most we can set some minimum threshold as to the expected warranty terms to be listed...for all vendors...including our free media project.
We also need to distinguish between those who do it for excessive profit and those who do not.
Market forces decide what is excessive and what is not. If you find one vendor's price is excessive then you, and every individual customer, can choose another vendor. For all we know the higher priced vendors have additional quality control procedures which ensure a higher quality service. I'm not going to punish a vendor who wants to set a higher price in exchange for a more reliable retail service than its competitors. If they feel the market can support the higher price along side less expensive retail services...then they should be allowed to compete. It's not our place to set the nominal market price. That's called price fixing.. and that's generally a bad idea.
-jef
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Jeff Spaleta jspaleta@gmail.com wrote:
When bad media happens we must rely on the vendors to stand behind the terms of the warranty statements in place at the time of sale. If they can't live up to the warranty statements then they get booted from our list. At the most we can set some minimum threshold as to the expected warranty terms to be listed...for all vendors...including our free media project.
Yes, that is trivially necessary. If they state the quality of media, then it helps the buyer. In India for example, it is possible to use really low quality media. And the standards for optical media are certainly in place.
a higher quality service. I'm not going to punish a vendor who wants to set a higher price in exchange for a more reliable retail service than its competitors. If they feel the market can support the higher price along side less expensive retail services...then they should be allowed to compete. It's not our place to set the nominal market price. That's called price fixing.. and that's generally a bad idea.
The point is that vendors should understand that there is limited scope for profit in the sector. Otherwise the vendors may all drop out due to poor sales... ...except for some volunteers
Best
A. Mani
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:17:31AM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Mani A a.mani.cms@gmail.com wrote:
Vendors should clearly state the quality of the media being used.
I do not agree with this. I think vendors should be required to have a stated warranty on the media to be listed.
They are required to do this, if they use the Fedora trademarks to advertise the media for sale: http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page4.html
2008/9/2 Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com:
They are required to do this, if they use the Fedora trademarks to advertise the media for sale: http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page4.html
I didn't say they weren't. What I'm saying is I don't think we should be in the business of attempting regulate pricing or quality. We aren't walmart.
-jef
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 16:22 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
2008/9/2 Paul W. Frields stickster@gmail.com:
They are required to do this, if they use the Fedora trademarks to advertise the media for sale: http://fedoraproject.org/legal/trademarks/guidelines/page4.html
I didn't say they weren't. What I'm saying is I don't think we should be in the business of attempting regulate pricing or quality. We aren't walmart.
I was adding information, not correcting you. ;-)
And I agree about our trying to regulate what should be a self-regulating market. If a vendor charges too much, people should (and likely will) avoid that vendor. Similarly, if a vendor produces crappy media, word gets around on "the tubes."
marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
A. Mani -
brendon -
David Nalley -
Francesco Ugolini -
Frank Murphy -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Jef Spaleta -
Mathieu Bridon -
Max Spevack -
Paul W. Frields