2009/5/8 Chris Cormack <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chris@bigballofwax.co.nz">chris@bigballofwax.co.nz</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;">
2009/5/9 Joshua Ferraro <<a href="mailto:jmf@liblime.com">jmf@liblime.com</a>>:<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> 3.2 PAY FOR SUPPORT<br>
>><br>
>> Support companies are listed by the date they joined the Koha community.<br>
>><br>
>> I really don't want to remove any credits to LibLime or BibLibre. You<br>
>> guys are doing awesome job. However, I'm a bit confused about the<br>
>> contribution part.<br>
>><br>
>> As far as I can tell, a contribution should be something that the company<br>
>> as paid or provide the ressource to do something. Features developped for<br>
>> and paid by a client shouldn't be considered as a contribution.<br>
>><br>
>> Has contributed over 55% of the entire Koha codebase, including the<br>
>> integration of Koha and Zebra<br>
>> Has contributed over 35% of the entire Koha codebase<br>
>> Was the developpment payed by a client? If so, the client should be<br>
>> credited for the integrations/development, not LibLime... does it make<br>
>> sense?<br>
><br>
> Well, I can't speak for BibLibre, but LibLime does not get paid by clients<br>
> to contribute back to the Koha community. We don't get paid to maintain<br>
> those contributions. We don't get paid by clients to write and maintain the<br>
> free documentation we've maintained for the community, and we don't get paid<br>
> by clients to hold time-consuming official Koha positions such as Release<br>
> Manager, Translation Manager and Documentation Manager. LibLime pays those<br>
> expenses ourselves at considerable cost to us.<br>
><br>
> Many of the Koha vendors listed on the support page do not contribute 100%<br>
> of the code they write for customers to the community, and we've learned<br>
> over the past fwew years that in some cases this is due to them not being<br>
> paid for that effort, and in other cases, its a deliberate attempt to<br>
> proprietize components of the services they offer.<br>
><br>
> LibLime has, from our inception in 2005, contributed back 100% of the code<br>
> we've created because we believe in the community process and we strive to<br>
> set an example for other support organizations.<br>
><br>
> Listing notable contributions by vendors on the support page where<br>
> applicable is additional incentive for vendors to get more actively involved<br>
> in contribution. Its important that libraries selecting support options know<br>
> the roles that their support provider is playing in the community.<br>
<br>
</div></div>I'm not going to answer this until I have calmed down enough to not go<br>
into flame mode.<br>
I do find it highly insulting to the rest of the community who are not<br>
liblime though.</blockquote><div>Certainly not my intent to insult anyone, nor to start a flame war, appologies if I've done so. I think LibLime's record speaks for itself on this matter, we've given everything we have to this community.<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;"><br>
<div class="im">><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> In March 2007, LibLime acquired the Koha division of Katipo<br>
>> Communications, Ltd., the original developers of Koha 1.0.<br>
>> Not really a contribution... This is marketing stuff and shoud stay on<br>
>> LibLime website.<br>
><br>
> That is not meant to be a marketing statement, but rather an explanation of<br>
> LibLime's listing having been grandfathered from Katipo's Koha Division,<br>
> which could be confusing to first-time visitors.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>Maybe then in that case in order to no confuse first time visitors you<br>
need to put that the three people hired in that grandfathering have<br>
all since left liblime.</blockquote><div>Please don't re-write history.<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;"><br>
<div class="im"><br>
>><br>
>> the koha-manage group decided to...<br>
>><br>
>> What are the factor making for someone to be in the Koha-manage group?<br>
>> There is no mention of such a group on <a href="http://koha.org" target="_blank">koha.org</a>.<br>
>><br>
>> My main point here is that the Koha.org website should be as<br>
>> vendor-independant as possible. I really think that the Alphabetical order<br>
>> is the best way to reach that goal.<br>
><br>
> I respectfully disagree. Listing by date joined is the most<br>
> vendor-independent and community-focused. Another fair option would be to<br>
> list in order of contributions, most to least. This community is, after all,<br>
> a meritocracy :).<br>
><br>
</div>The community is what the community decides it should be.</blockquote>I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Chris, could you explain? Do you mean to imply that the Koha community is not a meritocracy? Koha, like the Apache community has always represented 'Meritocracy in Action!' from my POV.<br>
</div><br>Cheers,<br><br>Josh<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Joshua Ferraro SUPPORT FOR OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE<br>CEO migration, training, maintenance, support<br>LibLime Featuring Koha Open-Source ILS<br>
<a href="mailto:jmf@liblime.com">jmf@liblime.com</a> |Full Demos at <a href="http://liblime.com/koha">http://liblime.com/koha</a> |1(888)KohaILS<br>