Disklabs wrote:
For the Russian companies I request information from my senior technician to tell me about what he knows about the company, what their website says etc..
surely this is not basis for acceptance? Word of mouth and a google search...
Disklabs wrote:
To date, approximately 40% of all those that have applied have been rejected.
What basis have you rejected applicants on? If you can include members based on a meeting (as with lostdata.ie), whats to say these decisions are not biased?
Disklabs wrote:
Salvation Data for example are an Associate Member - I am sure you will agree, they are quite important?
Depends on your idea of 'important'.
I do not see Acelab, or Atola here. Or Ontrack, i365, CBL....
Personally, I do not see how an association that determines how good or bad a DR company is, and even rejects applications from (potentially) established DR firms, and does not have members from the leading DR firms such as i365 and CBL, can or should be run by a DR company. Surely a independant body not associated with data recovery in any way would make a more successful and fair system.
Also, I would be surprised if there was not any complications running an association such as this when your an active member of the industry you are trying to police.