docs: provide guidelines for commercial support

[gbartolini]

Define standard guidelines in the SUPPORT.md file for professional organisations and individuals who want to be listed as support providers for CloudNativePG.

Closes #5706

[github-actions]

Build Error! No Linked Issue found. Please link an issue or mention it in the body using #<issue_id>

[github-actions]

❗ By default, the pull request is configured to backport to all release branches.

• To stop backporting this pr, remove the label: backport-requested ◀️ or add the label 'do not backport'
• To stop backporting this pr to a certain release branch, remove the specific branch label: release-x.y

[github-actions]

Build Error! No Linked Issue found. Please link an issue or mention it in the body using #<issue_id>

[github-actions]

Build Error! No Linked Issue found. Please link an issue or mention it in the body using #<issue_id>

[github-actions]

Build Error! No Linked Issue found. Please link an issue or mention it in the body using #<issue_id>

[github-actions]

Build Error! No Linked Issue found. Please link an issue or mention it in the body using #<issue_id>

[armru]

I don't think maintainers should be allowed to vet, or even do any validation to the submission to be added to the commercial support page, given that the maintainers are not in position to do any non formal evaluation.

What I suggest is to add a strict template to be added to the commercial support page, for example made by LOGO+LINK like others project do (ex: https://prometheus.io/support-training/). This would translate in a formal check for the link and logo correctness contained in the PR before merging.

[gbartolini]

I don't think maintainers should be allowed to vet, or even do any validation to the submission to be added to the commercial support page, given that the maintainers are not in position to do any non formal evaluation.

What I suggest is to add a strict template to be added to the commercial support page, for example made by LOGO+LINK like others project do (ex: https://prometheus.io/support-training/). This would translate in a formal check for the link and logo correctness contained in the PR before merging.

I must admit I tend to agree with you. Even though, in my experience, it is important that we keep the vetting process. A compromise could be to remove the 'description' and limit the submission to:

• name
• logo
• URL

However, IMO, we should ensure at least minimal analysis on the content of the website. This is a standard procedure and I don't think right now it will require a lot of work (I remember I was part of the moderators of the PostgreSQL website for a while and review was an important task).

For example, we should request that the website at least mentions PostgreSQL, Kubernetes and CloudNativePG, providing a link back to our project.

[mnencia]

/ok-to-merge