Talk:Contractor List

From email list:

(Exchange started by Pete, in response to Jeff's proposal)

They must prefer open source to proprietary software when there is no appreciable difference in featureset or quality (i.e. Firefox over IE, but not necessarily OpenOffice over MS Office)

I'm as pro-OSS as the next guy, but I'm not too comfortable with dictating philosophy. I'd be much more comfortable if this item read more like "They must be familiar with open source software, and have no bias against it." I think a contractor really ought to put his/her client's needs above any philosophical leanings anyway. If I'm a client, if there's no appreciable difference, I'd expect the contractor to draw up a few unbiased pros and cons for each, and let ME make the choice. (Pete)

This is why I put safeguards into it, so that it would read as 'if the contractor is in a position where there are two equal choices, an OSS option and a proprietary option, the contractor should be of a philosophical bent such that they would recommend the OSS choice, all other things being equal.' As that situation is unlikely to happen, the philosophical bent is going to come out in other ways. (Jeff)

Let me try to explain my position more clearly. If the situation is unlikely to happen, why have the requirement? I'd suggest there is little "practical" difference between stating it your way and stating it mine - we would generally get the same kind of people on the list. (I would expect pretty much anyone who is truly familiar with open source software would tend to trumpet its advantages.)

But with the milder version, we appear less partisan. Free Geek's reputation as an organization that exists to serve the community is important, and that reputation could be blemished if we advertise policies that emphasize a preference for one kind of software license over another.

If we're going to recommend a contractor, we appear most professional if our official criteria for doing that center on the contractor's ability to serve their clients, not their philosophical leanings.

-Pete

They must

• teach classes at FreeGeek or
• allow FreeGeek volunteers to shadow them in their work or
• donate their special skills for 10 hours a week average per month to nonprofits.

Isn't that a little steep? 10 hours/week becomes a lot more than that when you factor in marketing yourself 10 hours a week a little steep? Especially when the other ones aren't quantified at all? I guess I'm a little confused by the reason for any of the stuff mentioned in (2.) The concept of bartering for a recommendation doesn't sit well with me. If FG is recommending somebody, it seems that should be a reflection of FG's opinion of their ability to do a good job for the client, and nothing more.

Sure. This shouldn't be onerous, and they get to choose one of the three. The purpose of this was to encourage contractors who give back to the community.

As for reflection on opinion of the ability to do a good job, at the moment we have no way of positively determining that, only a way of negatively determining it (recommending someone and finding out from the client later). We should certainly remove anyone from the list who we find out was unsatisfactory, but unless we can come up with a way to test satisfactoriness beforehand, we may be stuck. (Jeff)

I don't think we should get too stuck on numbers. My suggestion (from which i think this sprang) just included the first two, but i think something like 10 hours a month would be fine - either 10 hours of job shadowing for an interested FG volunteer, or 10 hours of work donated to a nonprofit.

Also, we don't have the ability to test or filter people who would want to be on this list. I think the bartering is a fine way to get contractors work in exchange, give them a meaningful way to contribute to the community, and make sure we have some sense of who they are. If one of our volunteers shadows a contractor and comes back saying "wow, i was surprised how rude that guy was to the client," or "he really didn't seem to know what he was doing," then we know much more than we did before, and we might want to reconsider recommending him. This would also make more training available to our volunteers, and give highly-skilled folks a volunteering option other than build or joining the ASSes or coders. (Laurel)

• They must recommend responsible recycling of old hardware to all clients who replace hardware during their tenure, and are encouraged to recommend FreeGeek
• They must consider using recycled hardware where appropriate.

Check, check.

• They must tithe 5-10% of profits from projects we refer to them.

Again, not sure about this. Same reasons as #2. If this amount were tied to the costs incurred by FG in creating/maintaining the list, maybe. (Pete)

Think of this as a finder's fee. Work comes in through our publicity. (Jeff)

Let us also create a list, for their use, of hardware that we could make specially available to these contractors for the use in their projects, either granted to the nonprofits at the end or sold at discount. Examples: network-ready printers, matched diskless terminals, routers/firewalls, matched keyboards, etc.

I'm confused - why would FG sell at a discount, but then require a tithe?

Overall...would this list be primarily a service to (some of) our volunteers, a service to the public (including individuals, nonprofits, businesses), a service to the free/open source software movement, or a revenue-generator?

-Pete

We would sell at a discount hardware so as to support contractors' arguments for recycled hardware, which can be a tough sell in many places, and to get more hardware into the reuse stream, as contractors are likely to be more consistent purchasers than individuals. But the real purpose of that list is to keep in priority the need to offer things to contractors that individuals don't need, especially matched equipment, as many organizations prize the look of equipment that all looks the same.

The list is intended to take over the contracting functions of Collaborative Technologies, so it would, ideally, be a service to nonprofits, and an opportunity to contractors, especially OSS-friendly contractors.

It is? I had understood this as a simple response to Matthew's request, which was motivated by a desire to help callers/visitors looking for a contractor. If there's a tie-in with another issue, can we explore that in greater detail?

-Pete

In addition, as we desire to be able to offer neutral advice to nonprofits in technical areas, it would be a bit of a revenue generator to fund a coordinator. OSS is just our philosophy.

Jeff

Re-posted by rfs 08:41, 21 Jan 2005 (PST)