Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com>
Le 05/03/2010 12:11, MJ Ray a écrit :
Personally, I think it should be irrelevant to those seeking a vendor too. If a vendor needs to should that loudly about what contracts they're signing, rather than reporting afterwards in journal articles and so on, then something seems a bit wrong to me. "X signed Y" is not clear news - it might just mean X's sales/negotiators are good.
yes and no: I think it's important for someone to know that a french university has choosen Koha and BibLibre. If you're a university, you may find this information usefull.
That's a special case - in my experience, the main reason educational institutions find such information useful is because many of them have anti-competitive restrictions on procurement, such as a requirement that institutions should prefer a system already used by N other similar institutions. Of course, that means that new options can only enter the market in secret or in a flagship project! I acknowledge that such needs do exist, but I say they should not!
And if you investigate to choose or not koha: important to see it's a project heavily supported by companies.
Doesn't http://koha-community.org/support/paid-support/ and support company own sites do that? I worry that posting overt company points of view directly on the site make it look more like a trade mag and less like a community.
I strongly think companies must be at a second level and all being equally presented, as they are now. But I also strongly think that companies activity is a big + for the project itself.
I disagree. We are not all being equally presented yet; and such articles should be on a company's own sites and only linked from the community site. It should not be a source of free ads for vendors! 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