This is because it was not clear what the CentOS project policy was as to having a formal statement in its website or by project members having a formal @centos.org mailing address, mentioning particular vendors.
The project members concluded that it was not prudent to the 'risk to reputation' of the project by a recommendation of a vendor. Consider the possibility such a recommendation turns out poorly, either in the eyes of the purchaser, or the seller of such consulting services. The project has no resources nor mandate to sit as a judge or arbitrator of the accuracy of claimed defaults, nor should the project risk its reputation nor expend other assets as a mediator or participant in resolving the matter.
The consensus that has emerged is that we will continue the original informal practice of recognizing entities and persons that have made donations of servers and bandwidth. We also continue to note entities that run a formal mirror of the CentOS project with banner rotation.
But that consensus also concluded that the project will avoid appearing to 'single out' for mention any particular vendor in preference over or in derogation under others beyond that in the randomly performed banner rotation.
It is likewise not clear that the project should permit any entity to 'purchase an advertising position' above either another advertiser. Adoption of a formal advertisement policy, as such, remains an open matter of discussion, however
This amendment 15 July 2010
