Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

[SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Proposed voluntary vendor standards

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

My reply to some earlier postings related to my original question on mail
list advertising never showed up on the list for some reason, but it's now
dated so I won't pursue it.

Mark Deardorff made the following suggestions:

<< 1. Vendors will not post advertisements. Announcements of version
<< upgrades or new products limited to a few (<10?) lines are
<<appropriate. These should contain an e-mail address where interested
<<parties can respond.

I think you give us vendors too much credit here, Mark. Version update
notices can easily be manipulated into a marketing pitch.
<< 2. Vendors should reply only to individuals in reference to generic
<<requests for information about software.

I agree. If an individual is looking for a program that does a particular
task and I as a vendor market such a program, I should (and always have)
reply to him PRIVATELY.
<<3. Users should carry on tech support type dialogs with vendors by
<< private e-mail.

<< 4. Vendors may participate in general discussions of the types of
<< activities in which their software is involved. Areas might include
<< modeling for a developer of FEM solutions or office accounting
<< practices by a developer of accounting software.

I think this is a good idea. Vendors often have expertise in particular areas
and can sometimes provide illumination into the murkier aspects of particular
<<5. Vendors may reply publicly to any messages containing falsehoods
<< concerning their product. Such replies should quote the falsehood
<< verbatim and respond narrowly to the falsehood.

No question about this. 
<<6. In all cases, vendors should refrain from promoting their products
<< publicly (other than in the ways stated above) and refrain from
<< criticizing the products of their competitors.

Yes. Another question that occurs is what to do if a falsehood beneficial to
a particular program is posted, for example "Program A accurately performs
this type of analysis" and I know that to be untrue? I've had to bite my
tongue on occasion in the past. Perhaps, though, it's better that way. Any
challenges from my corner are obviously going to carry a certain bias. Caveat

Bruce Bates
RISA Technologies
"Proud developers of ... " (whoops, I just caught myself).