There are altogether too many exclusionary rules already for being listed on the 'pay for support' page . There may even be legal hazard from any possible mishap with a litigious library for certifying competence in a world of human frailty if the Koha community might be understood to function as a trade association in some legal jurisdictions which had certified the qualifications of some members.
I don't think the vendor listing has ever made claims about competence.
I presume we are now moving away from a process where one support company or a small group of support companies would exercise exclusive control over what appears on the community website.
I believe that is the goal.
I would prefer banning all mention of paid support services from the community website to the nonsensical treatment which has come regarding listing support service companies in the past year. I am not recommending such a ban but merely identifying what a problem the issue has been.
I like Chris's idea better. List everyone who applies, without judgment. Maybe even randomize the list on each view. I believe that removing the vendor list would definitely hurt the project itself. Right now, if a library is interested, they have one page where they can find every koha vendor ( at least all the one's serious enough to get listed. )
The very thing we should avoid is grandfathering, meaning exempting, anyone from the rules. Any rules worth having are rules which should be applied equally to all.
As long as Liblime is the only entity with complete control over koha.org, that's not going to happen. Kyle