Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Liz Rea
This information is also found online at: http://koha-community.org/support/paid-support/how-to-get-listed/

So you want to be listed as an official Koha Support provider?

It's easy:

Send an email of introduction to the Koha mailing list containing
(a) a request to be added
(b) description of services offered and contact information. You may copy and paste the following short form into your email if you like:

Company Name:

Contact Person:

Contact email:

Website:

Telephone:

Address:

Short description of your services:

Entries will be added if they represent a current proffer of Koha services.  Entries that are obviously spam (i.e., not relevant to Koha services) will not be accepted.

From time to time, the Koha webmasters may check vendors to see if they currently offer services.  If a company no longer does, their entry may be removed.  All removals will be posted publicly to the Koha mailing list.

A vendor may request that their entry be removed at any time.

These guidelines were adopted at the 5 May 2010 IRC meeting. Notes from the meeting can be found at http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2010-05-05#i_434509.

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

MJ Ray-2
Liz Rea wrote:
> http://koha-community.org/support/paid-support/how-to-get-listed/
[...]
> Entries will be added if they represent a current proffer of Koha
> services.  Entries that are obviously spam (i.e., not relevant to
> Koha services) will not be accepted.
>
> From time to time, the Koha webmasters may check vendors to see if
> they currently offer services.  If a company no longer does, their
> entry may be removed.  All removals will be posted publicly to the
> Koha mailing list.
[...]
> These guidelines were adopted at the 5 May 2010 IRC meeting. Notes
> from the meeting can be found at
> http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2010-05-05#i_434509.

Can we add a solidarity clause?  Do we want to list support providers
who are actively attacking our community through domain names,
trademarks and legal actions?  That sort of community-splitting tactic
should have no place in the project, IMO.

I move that any such providers should be suspended from the listing
until they cease legal actions against other providers and offer
domains and marks to the community in a FOSS-compatible way.

Furthermore, I suggest that the vendors' site must link back to
the community site, else their entry may be removed.

I'm in no hurry about the link back, but the actions, domains and marks
requirement seems pretty important.

Comments?

Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Koustubha Kale
+1

Regards,
Koustubha Kale
Anant Corporation

Contact Details :
Address  : 103, Armaan Residency, R. W Sawant Road, Nr. Golden Dyes Naka, Thane (w),
        Maharashtra, India, Pin : 400601.
TeleFax  : +91-22-21720108, +91-22-21720109
Mobile     : +919820715876
Website  : http://www.anantcorp.com
Blog : http://www.anantcorp.com/blog/?author=2


On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:48 PM, MJ Ray <[hidden email]> wrote:
Liz Rea wrote:
> http://koha-community.org/support/paid-support/how-to-get-listed/
[...]
> Entries will be added if they represent a current proffer of Koha
> services.  Entries that are obviously spam (i.e., not relevant to
> Koha services) will not be accepted.
>
> From time to time, the Koha webmasters may check vendors to see if
> they currently offer services.  If a company no longer does, their
> entry may be removed.  All removals will be posted publicly to the
> Koha mailing list.
[...]
> These guidelines were adopted at the 5 May 2010 IRC meeting. Notes
> from the meeting can be found at
> http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2010-05-05#i_434509.

Can we add a solidarity clause?  Do we want to list support providers
who are actively attacking our community through domain names,
trademarks and legal actions?  That sort of community-splitting tactic
should have no place in the project, IMO.

I move that any such providers should be suspended from the listing
until they cease legal actions against other providers and offer
domains and marks to the community in a FOSS-compatible way.

Furthermore, I suggest that the vendors' site must link back to
the community site, else their entry may be removed.

I'm in no hurry about the link back, but the actions, domains and marks
requirement seems pretty important.

Comments?

Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha



_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Kyle Hall
In reply to this post by MJ Ray-2
Sounds good to me.

http://www.kylehall.info
Mill Run Technology Solutions ( http://millruntech.com )
Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )
Meadville Public Library ( http://www.meadvillelibrary.org )



On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 2:18 PM, MJ Ray <[hidden email]> wrote:
[...]
> Entries will be added if they represent a current proffer of Koha
> services.  Entries that are obviously spam (i.e., not relevant to
> Koha services) will not be accepted.
>
> From time to time, the Koha webmasters may check vendors to see if
> they currently offer services.  If a company no longer does, their
> entry may be removed.  All removals will be posted publicly to the
> Koha mailing list.
[...]
> These guidelines were adopted at the 5 May 2010 IRC meeting. Notes
> from the meeting can be found at
> http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2010-05-05#i_434509.

Can we add a solidarity clause?  Do we want to list support providers
who are actively attacking our community through domain names,
trademarks and legal actions?  That sort of community-splitting tactic
should have no place in the project, IMO.

I move that any such providers should be suspended from the listing
until they cease legal actions against other providers and offer
domains and marks to the community in a FOSS-compatible way.

Furthermore, I suggest that the vendors' site must link back to
the community site, else their entry may be removed.

I'm in no hurry about the link back, but the actions, domains and marks
requirement seems pretty important.

Comments?

Thanks,
--
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha


_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Reed Wade
In reply to this post by MJ Ray-2
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:18 AM, MJ Ray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Can we add a solidarity clause?  Do we want to list support providers


There was a bit of discussion on this point in the IRC mtg. The
consensus resolved to something like "it's difficult and distracting
to make and maintain and enforce a reliable test of goodness so
instead just keep it clean and simple"

plus "oh, and maybe we'll also add a Cool Vendors Do This check list
to appear on the directly page as well"

--

the energy would be better spent updating docs or making patches or
watching tv or something

-reed
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Reed Wade
er, "directory page"

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Reed Wade <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:18 AM, MJ Ray <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Can we add a solidarity clause?  Do we want to list support providers
>
>
> There was a bit of discussion on this point in the IRC mtg. The
> consensus resolved to something like "it's difficult and distracting
> to make and maintain and enforce a reliable test of goodness so
> instead just keep it clean and simple"
>
> plus "oh, and maybe we'll also add a Cool Vendors Do This check list
> to appear on the directly page as well"
>
> --
>
> the energy would be better spent updating docs or making patches or
> watching tv or something
>
> -reed
>
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

MJ Ray-4
In reply to this post by Reed Wade
Reed Wade wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:18 AM, MJ Ray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Can we add a solidarity clause?  Do we want to list support providers
>
> There was a bit of discussion on this point in the IRC mtg. The
> consensus resolved to something like "it's difficult and distracting
> to make and maintain and enforce a reliable test of goodness so
> instead just keep it clean and simple"

I didn't find it on http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2010-05-04
and I don't understand the reasons for that consensus.  Sorting this out
correctly once seems much less distracting than leaving it fuzzy and
having the sort of problems we had under LibLime's rule, while my
proposed solidarity clause seems pretty clean and simple to me.

> plus "oh, and maybe we'll also add a Cool Vendors Do This check list
> to appear on the directly page as well"

Would librarians involved in purchasing like to comment on how many
they think would actually use such a checklist as part of choosing a
support provider?  If it'd work, great, but I have my doubts that it
is compatible with Best Value and similar purchasing rules, so it is
better for the community to limit listing to those in good standing.

> the energy would be better spent updating docs or making patches or
> watching tv or something

No, not really.  This is a bang per buck thing: we should invest this
bit of energy to free up a lot of vendor energy for the community.

If our community directs paid work towards vendors who are working
against it, then those who play nice will not achieve their potential
and the community will benefit less than it could.  We're effectively
working against ourselves if we help those who work against us.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Ian Walls
Here's what I'm seeing:

The current proposal is for our Support Companies page to list *every company claiming (with some level of verifiability) to offer Koha services*.  Thus, the purpose of the page is to simply be a list of all the potential possibilities for a Koha support company, with no quality judgement of any kind placed on the companies.  Getting listed only requires the verification of a simple fact.

The difficulty comes with the possibility of a company offering Koha services that are not in the spirit of the community.  It seems does indeed seem counterproductive to list companies that would be working somehow against the communal good, but determining what that good is, and whether a company is actively undermining it, requires a judgement to be made, which in turn requires a judge, and (to be fair) some kind of appeals process, etc.  The social machinery necessary to run such a system in an open way compatible with the spirit of our community would require effort that could otherwise be spent patching, documenting or enjoying life.  So, in order to make the Support Companies page serve as *a list of recommended Koha support companies*, we as a community have to work that much harder.  It's not longer a matter of verifying a fact to get listed, it's a matter of judgement.

If I may offer a third position for discussion:  what if the community were to define a discrete list of potential Koha services that a company can offer to be listed?  For example:

Local/hosted installation of Koha 3.0.x (and later 3.2.0)
Local/hosted installation of a customized Koha version
Migration services
Server maintenance
Open source code development
On-site training
Publicly available git repository
etc., etc., etc.

By making these services clear and descriptive (and still all verifiable), we can give interested parties the world over a more complete picture of what each company is offering, and allow them to make their own judgement on how well that company can support their needs.  Listing a company is still a matter of checking facts, just a more fine-grained set of them.

Comments, questions, counterpoints?


-Ian



On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:22 AM, MJ Ray <[hidden email]> wrote:
Reed Wade wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:18 AM, MJ Ray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Can we add a solidarity clause?  Do we want to list support providers
>
> There was a bit of discussion on this point in the IRC mtg. The
> consensus resolved to something like "it's difficult and distracting
> to make and maintain and enforce a reliable test of goodness so
> instead just keep it clean and simple"

I didn't find it on http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2010-05-04
and I don't understand the reasons for that consensus.  Sorting this out
correctly once seems much less distracting than leaving it fuzzy and
having the sort of problems we had under LibLime's rule, while my
proposed solidarity clause seems pretty clean and simple to me.

> plus "oh, and maybe we'll also add a Cool Vendors Do This check list
> to appear on the directly page as well"

Would librarians involved in purchasing like to comment on how many
they think would actually use such a checklist as part of choosing a
support provider?  If it'd work, great, but I have my doubts that it
is compatible with Best Value and similar purchasing rules, so it is
better for the community to limit listing to those in good standing.

> the energy would be better spent updating docs or making patches or
> watching tv or something

No, not really.  This is a bang per buck thing: we should invest this
bit of energy to free up a lot of vendor energy for the community.

If our community directs paid work towards vendors who are working
against it, then those who play nice will not achieve their potential
and the community will benefit less than it could.  We're effectively
working against ourselves if we help those who work against us.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op
_______________________________________________



--
Ian Walls
Lead Development Specialist
ByWater Solutions
ALA Booth # 817
Phone # (888) 900-8944
http://bywatersolutions.com
[hidden email]
Twitter: @sekjal

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Galen Charlton-3
Hi,

On May 10, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Ian Walls wrote:
> If I may offer a third position for discussion:  what if the community were to define a discrete list of potential Koha services that a company can offer to be listed?  For example:
[snip]
> By making these services clear and descriptive (and still all verifiable), we can give interested parties the world over a more complete picture of what each company is offering, and allow them to make their own judgement on how well that company can support their needs.  Listing a company is still a matter of checking facts, just a more fine-grained set of them.

This would overcomplicate the listing process, in my opinion, and put the community back into the business of analyzing each request to verify detailed claims.  Such verification could in turn amount to an implied endorsement of each vendor listing, which I would argue is outside the scope of the vendor directory.  The current format of company name, contact information, and a brief statement of services offered is sufficient; if a vendor wants to provide a detailed breakdown of their services, they can do so on their own website.

This is not to say that it wouldn't be a useful exercise for a disinterested party to put together a matrix of specific services offered by each vendor, but that should be outside the scope of the vendor listing on the main website.

Regards,

Galen
--
Galen Charlton
VP, Data Services
Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
email:  [hidden email]
direct: +1 352-215-7548
skype:  gmcharlt
web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Liz Rea
Here is the direct link to the portion of the meeting where support provider registration was discussed: http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2010-05-05#i_434736

Just wanted to make sure everyone saw the original discussion. :)

Thanks,
Liz Rea
NEKLS

On May 10, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Galen Charlton wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On May 10, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Ian Walls wrote:
>> If I may offer a third position for discussion:  what if the community were to define a discrete list of potential Koha services that a company can offer to be listed?  For example:
> [snip]
>> By making these services clear and descriptive (and still all verifiable), we can give interested parties the world over a more complete picture of what each company is offering, and allow them to make their own judgement on how well that company can support their needs.  Listing a company is still a matter of checking facts, just a more fine-grained set of them.
>
> This would overcomplicate the listing process, in my opinion, and put the community back into the business of analyzing each request to verify detailed claims.  Such verification could in turn amount to an implied endorsement of each vendor listing, which I would argue is outside the scope of the vendor directory.  The current format of company name, contact information, and a brief statement of services offered is sufficient; if a vendor wants to provide a detailed breakdown of their services, they can do so on their own website.
>
> This is not to say that it wouldn't be a useful exercise for a disinterested party to put together a matrix of specific services offered by each vendor, but that should be outside the scope of the vendor listing on the main website.
>
> Regards,
>
> Galen
> --
> Galen Charlton
> VP, Data Services
> Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
> email:  [hidden email]
> direct: +1 352-215-7548
> skype:  gmcharlt
> web:    http://www.esilibrary.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Koha mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Andrea Chandler-2
In reply to this post by Liz Rea
Hi,

I think we should avoid scattering information about who supports Koha-
it's the last thing that potential new users need. I like Reed Wade's
idea of a checklist that people can choose to apply when they make
enquiries.



> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 00:38:56 +1200
> From: Reed Wade<[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Koha] Registering as a support provider at
> koha-community.org
> To: MJ Ray<[hidden email]>
> Cc:[hidden email]
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:18 AM, MJ Ray<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>    
>> >  Can we add a solidarity clause? ?Do we want to list support providers
>>      
> There was a bit of discussion on this point in the IRC mtg. The
> consensus resolved to something like "it's difficult and distracting
> to make and maintain and enforce a reliable test of goodness so
> instead just keep it clean and simple"
>
> plus "oh, and maybe we'll also add a Cool Vendors Do This check list
> to appear on the directly page as well"
>
> --
>
> the energy would be better spent updating docs or making patches or
> watching tv or something
>
> -reed
>
>
>    



Best wishes,

Andrea


*Andrea Chandler*
Librarian Specialist
CAMLIS- Complementary and Alternative Medicine Library & Information
Service
The Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital
60 Great Ormond Street
London WC1N 3HR
+44 (0) 20 7391 8828

[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
http://www.cam.nhs.uk/


_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

MJ Ray-2
In reply to this post by Ian Walls
Ian Walls wrote: [...]
> The current proposal is for our Support Companies page to list *every
> company claiming (with some level of verifiability) to offer Koha services*.
>  Thus, the purpose of the page is to simply be a list of all the potential
> possibilities for a Koha support company, with no quality judgement of any
> kind placed on the companies.  Getting listed only requires the verification
> of a simple fact.
>
> The difficulty comes with the possibility of a company offering Koha
> services that are not in the spirit of the community. [...]

This is much simpler than looking for services "in the spirit".  It is
a verifiable fact whether a company owns a domain or trademark, it is
a verifiable fact whether that has been offered to HLT or another
community group to manage and it is a verifiable fact whether legal
proceedings over Koha have been entered and not resolved.  No judge
required and the informal appeals process suggested for other
delistings would be fine.

Please don't overreact to the LibLime approach by dismantling all
quality control on the community website.  This is not the old
'you are cool' test.  It is a simpler, factual solidarity test.
Couldn't we adopt this, please?


Thanks to wizzyrea for the link to the developer meeting.  I'm
surprised that it was put to developers and not the community one, not
that we made either of them this month (first time in a while). :-/

About 28 people were in the meeting.  About 7 voted for "boil the list
down to one question: does the vendor offer Koha services of any
kind", 0 abstained, 0 against.  Why such a low turnout?  Low support
or fatigue?  Moreover, I think one voter had a conflict of interest
because they have influence over a private koha domain.

I also see that about 6 voted for link-back, 1 abstained, 1 against.
Why do we seem to be adopting one-question but not link-back?


> If I may offer a third position for discussion:  what if the community were
> to define a discrete list of potential Koha services that a company can
> offer to be listed?

I hope that could come in technical upgrades to the listings page,
but it seem independent of whether to list a company or not.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Chris Cormack-6
On 11 May 2010 05:05, MJ Ray <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ian Walls wrote: [...]
>> The current proposal is for our Support Companies page to list *every
>> company claiming (with some level of verifiability) to offer Koha services*.
>>  Thus, the purpose of the page is to simply be a list of all the potential
>> possibilities for a Koha support company, with no quality judgement of any
>> kind placed on the companies.  Getting listed only requires the verification
>> of a simple fact.
>>
>> The difficulty comes with the possibility of a company offering Koha
>> services that are not in the spirit of the community. [...]
>
> This is much simpler than looking for services "in the spirit".  It is
> a verifiable fact whether a company owns a domain or trademark, it is
> a verifiable fact whether that has been offered to HLT or another
> community group to manage and it is a verifiable fact whether legal
> proceedings over Koha have been entered and not resolved.  No judge
> required and the informal appeals process suggested for other
> delistings would be fine.
>
> Please don't overreact to the LibLime approach by dismantling all
> quality control on the community website.  This is not the old
> 'you are cool' test.  It is a simpler, factual solidarity test.
> Couldn't we adopt this, please?
>
I vote no, while it is a verifiable fact, some of these are not easily
verifiable. Do we really want to have to search every legal database
each time we list a vendor?? Who is going to do that? I vote list
everyone, this doesn't preclude people from pointing out when people
are behaving badly, but I think the listing should have no judgement
implied at all.

If we can't do that, I vote for pulling the listing from the website,
and just using the wiki where people can have edit wars to their
hearts content.
>
> Thanks to wizzyrea for the link to the developer meeting.  I'm
> surprised that it was put to developers and not the community one, not
> that we made either of them this month (first time in a while). :-/
>
Just a clarification.

It was put to the General IRC meeting, not the community handover one,
they are both community meetings and neither of them are developer
only. And it was put to that because someone put it on the agenda for
it, the same way everything gets on onto the agendas.

> About 28 people were in the meeting.  About 7 voted for "boil the list
> down to one question: does the vendor offer Koha services of any
> kind", 0 abstained, 0 against.  Why such a low turnout?  Low support
> or fatigue?  Moreover, I think one voter had a conflict of interest
> because they have influence over a private koha domain.
>
> I also see that about 6 voted for link-back, 1 abstained, 1 against.
> Why do we seem to be adopting one-question but not link-back?
>
>

Chris
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Lenora Oftedahl
In reply to this post by MJ Ray-2
I have to agree with MJ here. This question is pretty simple.  Is a company trying to take over a Koha asset for 'personal' gain?  If they are, then that company is not really part of the community.  Have they created a fork in the code?  Then they are not part of the community.

Lenora
StreamNet Regional Librarian
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
http://www.fishlib.org


>
> The difficulty comes with the possibility of a company offering Koha
> services that are not in the spirit of the community. [...]

This is much simpler than looking for services "in the spirit".  It is
a verifiable fact whether a company owns a domain or trademark, it is
a verifiable fact whether that has been offered to HLT or another
community group to manage and it is a verifiable fact whether legal
proceedings over Koha have been entered and not resolved.  No judge
required and the informal appeals process suggested for other
delistings would be fine.



_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Reed Wade-2
In reply to this post by Andrea Chandler-2
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Andrea Chandler <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think we should avoid scattering information about who supports Koha-
> it's the last thing that potential new users need. I like Reed Wade's
> idea of a checklist that people can choose to apply when they make
> enquiries.

wasn't my idea (but I do like it)

someone suggested this in the IRC mtg as a nice way to help readers
make their own judgment of goodness

-reed
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Lars Wirzenius-7
In reply to this post by Chris Cormack-6
On ti, 2010-05-11 at 05:30 +1200, Chris Cormack wrote:
> If we can't do that, I vote for pulling the listing from the website,
> and just using the wiki where people can have edit wars to their
> hearts content.

I suspect a listing in the wiki would be most in the community spirit
anyway. However, I think a more important point in this discussion is
that there's a perceived need to do "quality control" on the Koha
vendors.

Would it be better to do that via feedback from customers rather than
pre-approval by the community? In other words, have a list of all Koha
vendors, and then a mechanism via which their customers can give
feedback on how satisfied they are. This could be a mailing list, a wiki
page, or a, say, a yearly survey sent out to Koha users.


_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

Chris Cormack-6
On 11 May 2010 10:13, Lars Wirzenius <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On ti, 2010-05-11 at 05:30 +1200, Chris Cormack wrote:
>> If we can't do that, I vote for pulling the listing from the website,
>> and just using the wiki where people can have edit wars to their
>> hearts content.
>
> I suspect a listing in the wiki would be most in the community spirit
> anyway. However, I think a more important point in this discussion is
> that there's a perceived need to do "quality control" on the Koha
> vendors.
>
> Would it be better to do that via feedback from customers rather than
> pre-approval by the community? In other words, have a list of all Koha
> vendors, and then a mechanism via which their customers can give
> feedback on how satisfied they are. This could be a mailing list, a wiki
> page, or a, say, a yearly survey sent out to Koha users.
>
>
Ooohh I like it :)

+1 from me

Chris
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

MJ Ray-2
In reply to this post by Chris Cormack-6
Chris Cormack wrote:
> On 11 May 2010 05:05, MJ Ray <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Please don't overreact to the LibLime approach by dismantling all
> > quality control on the community website.  This is not the old
> > 'you are cool' test.  It is a simpler, factual solidarity test.
> > Couldn't we adopt this, please?
> >
> I vote no, while it is a verifiable fact, some of these are not easily
> verifiable. Do we really want to have to search every legal database
> each time we list a vendor?? [...]

Where did that idea come from?  No-one would "have to search".
Someone would request listing and if no-one points a problem out,
assume the best until told otherwise; if told otherwise, expect the
person who pointed out the problem to substantiate it and the
listing-requestor to rebut it.  I'm not asking anyone else to search
legal databases.

I don't mind people arguing against the solidarity clause, but please
argue against solidarity, rather than imagining extra problems.

> I vote list everyone, this doesn't preclude people from pointing out
> when people are behaving badly, but I think the listing should have
> no judgement implied at all.

The listing necessarily has some judgment implied: we think X offers
Koha support.  I suspect that most people would expect the community
view of "offers Koha support" to include not trying to disrupt Koha or
its community, but I've not tested that yet.

The idea of "if you can't say anything nice, say nothing" is still
very common, so anyone pointing out bad behaviour also gets damaged a
bit.  Is anyone going to point anything but the very worst behaviour
out?

There aren't many people pointing out the current koha* domain names
under private control, for example.  Why will that change?

Regards,
--
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op

_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

david-825
In reply to this post by Lenora Oftedahl
On Mon, 10 May 2010, Lenora Oftedahl wrote:

> I have to agree with MJ here. This question is pretty simple.  Is a
> company trying to take over a Koha asset for 'personal' gain?  If they
> are, then that company is not really part of the community.  Have they
> created a fork in the code?  Then they are not part of the community.

the problem is how you define these things.

Looking at Linux vendors as a parallel,

You will find people who believe that Red Hat has done all of the things
above.

You will find others who believe that Red Hat can do nothing wrong and is
the example that all other companies should aspire to, but that Connonical
(the publishers of Ubuntu) are examples of pure evil.

I would expect that any companies doing significant work on Koha would
maintain their own fork, if for no other reason than they need a place to
test their changes before they are ready to be submitted upstream.

for that matter, if/when I make my own installation of Koha for my home
library, I expect that I will end up maintaining my own fork for some
things for at least a little while. The mere existance of a fork is not
evidence of misbehavior, it's when that fork is misused that there is a
problem, and that gets back into either judgement calls, or many, many
detailed rules of what's acceptable.

As far as taking over a Koha asset for 'personal' gain, exactly how do you
tell the difference between them doing it for 'personal' gain vs honestly
believeing that it's best for the community?

This can be a very slippery slope, and even worse, if you have such a
mechanism in place, people may end up feeling as if it has been misused,
even when it hasn't been (people can mistake delays in validation because
someone is busy with deliberate foot-dragging because it's a competitor
for example)

It may annoy you to list companies that you feel are doing the community a
disservice, but you need to think very carefully about the cost of going
to other way.

Given that you have a wiki, you may want to list all companies in one
page, but then have links to sub-pages for each company where users can
add additional comments that are very clearly not the judgement of the
community, but rateings of users. If you do this I would suggest that as a
matter of policy, community officers refrain from posting any comments
(other than a Legal officer noting the existance and providing links to
the outcome of any litigation)

It's not just avoiding impropriety, it's avoiding any possible appearance
of impropriety.

David Lang

> Lenora
> StreamNet Regional Librarian
> Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
> http://www.fishlib.org
>
>
>>
>> The difficulty comes with the possibility of a company offering Koha
>> services that are not in the spirit of the community. [...]
>
> This is much simpler than looking for services "in the spirit".  It is
> a verifiable fact whether a company owns a domain or trademark, it is
> a verifiable fact whether that has been offered to HLT or another
> community group to manage and it is a verifiable fact whether legal
> proceedings over Koha have been entered and not resolved.  No judge
> required and the informal appeals process suggested for other
> delistings would be fine.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Koha mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
>
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha