2009/5/8 Eric Bégin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Eric.Begin@inlibro.com">Eric.Begin@inlibro.com</a>></span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
As far as I can tell, a contribution should be something that the
company as paid or provide the ressource to do something. Features
developped for and paid by a client shouldn't be considered as a
contribution.<br>
<br>
Was the developpment payed by a client? If so, the client should be
credited for the integrations/development, not LibLime... does it make
sense?</div></blockquote><div><br>I realize this section is going to be the point of some discussion, so I am happy to have it. But I do not agree with your logic. The point of the "for pay" support page is to direct users to companies with Koha expertise. If a client paid for a feature, that does not make the client any more able to provide Koha support, or interested in providing it! Most clients too busy running their own libraries to establish financial relationships for Koha support to other users around the world. So this is not a list of "benefactors" or "contributors". Rather it is about people that can help you now. <br>
<br>A "History of Koha Features" page would be correct to credit the paying client. Perhaps the confusion results from the historical structure applied to a "koha credentials" problem, as Thomas suggested. <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">In March 2007, LibLime acquired the Koha division of Katipo
Communications, Ltd., the original developers of Koha 1.0.<br>
Not really a contribution... This is marketing stuff and shoud stay on
LibLime website.</div></blockquote><div><br>All of the entries on the "for pay" page serve a marketing purpose. Again, I think you are confusing "contribution" in the charitable sense with its usage here, and perhaps more broadly the purpose of a more general "history" or "credits" page with the purpose of this one.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">My main point here is that the Koha.org website should be as
vendor-independant as possible. I really think that the Alphabetical
order is the best way to reach that goal. <br></div></blockquote></div><br>Why would chronological order be less informative? It is certainly less volatile (additions only to the tip). <br><br>I'm not against alphabetical, I just don't see that all other orders are necessarily "vendor dependent". <br>
<br>-- <br>Joe Atzberger<br>LibLime - Open Source Library Solutions<br>
<br>