<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Can you please list some specific examples of support vendors on that
page who's contributions are under-represented? That would really help
because we could add those contributions directly to the page.</pre>
</blockquote>
What about an editable section for each partner, limited to a number of
caracters/lines. That way, we won't have to send email to the admin
every time we want to change something and we will be free to write
whatever we want.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Joshua Ferraro wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:2dfa91e40905120950p290f1ea2w7df68174f42cbac@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dukleth <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kohalist@agogme.com"><kohalist@agogme.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Reply inline:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 2:01 am, Rachel Hamilton-Williams wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I agree with this 100%. Let's have a separate page that lists
sponsors (like the About page in Koha itself) but let's keep the "for
pay" page exclusively for companies in the Koha community wishing to
offer their services.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">1. FAILING TO SHOW EXPERTISE.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Yep - and I see no contradiction with a company saying the features that
they've developed - it's good to show what their expertise is, which is
what people are interested in
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Showing expertise by identifying features which support companies have
developed or to which they have made significant contributions is
important. However, the new presentation of such information in the pay
for support page is not representative of the work actually done and the
multiple parties which have contributed significantly to that work as a
community project.
The presentation over-represents the work of some and under-represents the
work of others. That presentation is unfair to both 'major contributors'
and 'minor contributors'. The presented contributions of one 'major
contributor' are overrepresented relative to the contributions of the
other 'major contributor'. Some 'minor contributors' have contributed
major features and made major contributions to features originally
developed by others, but the presentation does not distinguish them by any
contribution. Most of all the presentation is unfair to the Koha project
itself which is a community project to which everyone is expected to
contribute.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Can you please list some specific examples of support vendors on that
page who's contributions are under-represented? That would really help
because we could add those contributions directly to the page.
Cheers,
Josh
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Consequently, the presentation does not adequately identify the expertise
which it supposedly intended to show. People are interested in knowing
the expertise of companies but the actual information presented is
counter-informative. Much less information is presented than would be
needed to be informative and not be very misleading.
A proper full presentation of significant contributions to Koha does not
belong in a directory of support companies because giving due attributions
for significant contributions would transform a directory of support
companies into a feature list. Only a separate contributions page or set
of pages would have the space to properly represent significant
contributions. Such a contributions page or set of pages could be linked
from the pay for support page.
2. ANNOTATION VALUE LISTS.
Some set of annotations constrained by value lists for which there is real
consensus may be helpful on the pay for support page. Annotations from
constrained value lists would be very different from what is presented
currently where some of the annotations do not seem to have any objective
criteria applied for their inclusion or omission.
3. ATTRIBUTION PAGE OR PAGES.
Contributions should certainly be acknowledged with appropriate
attribution but they must be fairly presented where there is proper space
to present them fairly. In a fair presentation, the contributions of the
'major contributors' would be appropriately seen to be enormous but they
would not detract from the contributions of others or the community nature
of the project.
People contributing to Koha are working towards a common goal. As they
pursue their own particular interests for their own contributions they
help others and create a better system which everyone can use and on which
everyone can build.
4. FAIRNESS AND BEING SEEN TO BE FAIR.
Supposedly historical ordering which is not actually historical is a worse
problem than the inadequate presentation of contributions because it is
more obviously inaccurate. Yet, every problem of unfair presentation
needs to be addressed.
We should not impute people's motives much as we may wonder and try to
understand them. We should merely encourage others not only to pursue
their interests fairly but also in a manner which is seen to be fair.
This fundamental respect and fairness towards others despite private
differences and problems has always been a self-evident characteristic of
the Koha community from the beginning.
[...]
Thomas Dukleth
Agogme
109 E 9th Street, 3D
New York, NY 10003
USA
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.agogme.com">http://www.agogme.com</a>
212-674-3783
_______________________________________________
Koha mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz">Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha">http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>