Re: [Koha] Koha demo links on koha.org
Did it again. Grr. This was supposed to go to The Community. Thanks, -- Ben On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>
This is quoted from here: http://www.nabble.com/LibLime-Enterprise-Koha-Q-A-to25461986.html#a25480875
You'll quote someone who spoke with Josh in a telephone conversation, but not Josh's direct response to the list?
http://www.nabble.com/LibLime-Enterprise-Koha-Q-A-to25461986.html#a25480875
Hi Ben, On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>
This is quoted from here: http://www.nabble.com/LibLime-Enterprise-Koha-Q-A-to25461986.html#a25480875
You'll quote someone who spoke with Josh in a telephone conversation, but not Josh's direct response to the list?
http://www.nabble.com/LibLime-Enterprise-Koha-Q-A-to25461986.html#a25480875
Josh is a subscriber to this list and thus is free to correct any mis-quotes of himself. I would encourage him to do so. I do not think for a moment that anyone on this list desires to mis-quote Josh. On the contrary, I think we would all desire most sincerely to very clearly understand Josh and his present course of action. Perhaps you could request this of Josh or encourage the individual at your organization who is responsible for your relationship to LL to request it of Josh? Kind Regards, Chris
Ben, Which email were you trying to link to? The link I had in my reply was to the message I quoted. The only email I saw other than that was one saying that the code would be released eventually. Which I do not think was what Thomas was asking. Nicole 2009/10/12 Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu>:
Hi Ben,
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>
This is quoted from here: http://www.nabble.com/LibLime-Enterprise-Koha-Q-A-to25461986.html#a25480875
You'll quote someone who spoke with Josh in a telephone conversation, but not Josh's direct response to the list?
http://www.nabble.com/LibLime-Enterprise-Koha-Q-A-to25461986.html#a25480875
Josh is a subscriber to this list and thus is free to correct any mis-quotes of himself. I would encourage him to do so. I do not think for a moment that anyone on this list desires to mis-quote Josh. On the contrary, I think we would all desire most sincerely to very clearly understand Josh and his present course of action.
Perhaps you could request this of Josh or encourage the individual at your organization who is responsible for your relationship to LL to request it of Josh?
Kind Regards, Chris _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Thanks for your reply, Chris. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote:
From Ben, with snips:
You'll quote someone who spoke with Josh in a telephone conversation, but not Josh's direct response to the list?
Josh is a subscriber to this list and thus is free to correct any mis-quotes of himself. I would encourage him to do so. I do not think for a moment that anyone on this list desires to mis-quote Josh. On the contrary, I think we would all desire most sincerely to very clearly understand Josh and his present course of action.
To what advantage? Why should he send another missive here when all have been content to ignore the previous ones? http://www.nabble.com/user/UserPosts.jtp?user=97160
Perhaps you could request this of Josh or encourage the individual at your organization who is responsible for your relationship to LL to request it of Josh?
Again, what on earth would be the advantage of that? To me, it just seems like a waste of a busy person's time. Thanks, -- Ben http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/64560
I think we've gotten off track here a bit. The original message from Owen called for the links to demos on Koha.org to go to Koha demos - not LEK demos. A request that makes perfect sense. The fact that LEK code may eventually be released to the world, doesn't come into play here. The fact is that links to LEK demos on the Koha.org site are misleading and imply that the code is available to all for download now. I for one was not ignoring what Josh said earlier - I was stating - as others were - that the links to demos on the official Koha.org website should go to the open source, freely available, version of Koha - not a company specific version of Koha that you have to pay in order to get. Nicole On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for your reply, Chris.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote: From Ben, with snips:
You'll quote someone who spoke with Josh in a telephone conversation, but not Josh's direct response to the list?
Josh is a subscriber to this list and thus is free to correct any mis-quotes of himself. I would encourage him to do so. I do not think for a moment that anyone on this list desires to mis-quote Josh. On the contrary, I think we would all desire most sincerely to very clearly understand Josh and his present course of action.
To what advantage? Why should he send another missive here when all have been content to ignore the previous ones?
http://www.nabble.com/user/UserPosts.jtp?user=97160
Perhaps you could request this of Josh or encourage the individual at your organization who is responsible for your relationship to LL to request it of Josh?
Again, what on earth would be the advantage of that? To me, it just seems like a waste of a busy person's time.
Thanks, -- Ben
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/64560 _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we've gotten off track here a bit.
Maybe not too far off. :-) The entire issue with the links devolves to the continued silence by LL to any requests; even those by all standards reasonable.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote: From Ben, with snips:
You'll quote someone who spoke with Josh in a telephone conversation, but not Josh's direct response to the list?
Josh is a subscriber to this list and thus is free to correct any mis-quotes of himself. I would encourage him to do so. I do not think for a moment that anyone on this list desires to mis-quote Josh. On the contrary, I think we would all desire most sincerely to very clearly understand Josh and his present course of action.
To what advantage? Why should he send another missive here when all have been content to ignore the previous ones?
By the looks of the length of the thread referenced I would say that Josh's previous "missive" was not ignored by any stretch of the imagination. Rather it looks like Josh failed to follow up with clarification to his "missive." This is the very issue of "continued silence" which we now experience with requests which, again, are reasonable by any standard.
Perhaps you could request this of Josh or encourage the individual at your organization who is responsible for your relationship to LL to request it of Josh?
Again, what on earth would be the advantage of that? To me, it just seems like a waste of a busy person's time.
I would expect that it would be obvious that the customers of LL are in the absolute best position to bring legitimate pressure to bear on LL to reengage with the community. The investment of "a busy person's time" to achieve the re-engagement of LL in the community would be anything but a "waste." To the contrary, it would probably rank among the greater contributions to the Koha project. (No one denies the large contribution LL has made to Koha nor despises it. The complaint is with how they have handled themselves in the light of other business pressures.) It is my humble opinion that your organization could very possibly be in the best position to make such a valuable contribution to this community. Kind Regards, Chris
Replies inline.. On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we've gotten off track here a bit.
Maybe not too far off. :-) The entire issue with the links devolves to the continued silence by LL to any requests; even those by all standards reasonable.
So, if LibLime promised to make all their code available after customer signoff, would this reduce all of this discussion to a footnote in Koha's history? Because this promise has been made on more than one occasion.
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote: From Ben, with snips:
You'll quote someone who spoke with Josh in a telephone conversation, but not Josh's direct response to the list?
Josh is a subscriber to this list and thus is free to correct any mis-quotes of himself. I would encourage him to do so. I do not think for a moment that anyone on this list desires to mis-quote Josh. On the contrary, I think we would all desire most sincerely to very clearly understand Josh and his present course of action.
To what advantage? Why should he send another missive here when all have been content to ignore the previous ones?
By the looks of the length of the thread referenced I would say that Josh's previous "missive" was not ignored by any stretch of the imagination. Rather it looks like Josh failed to follow up with clarification to his "missive." This is the very issue of "continued silence" which we now experience with requests which, again, are reasonable by any standard.
Actually, with perhaps two exceptions, all the discussion off that thread can be summed up with "Thanks. Could you use Git, please?"
Perhaps you could request this of Josh or encourage the individual at your organization who is responsible for your relationship to LL to request it of Josh?
Again, what on earth would be the advantage of that? To me, it just seems like a waste of a busy person's time.
I would expect that it would be obvious that the customers of LL are in the absolute best position to bring legitimate pressure to bear on LL to reengage with the community. The investment of "a busy person's time" to achieve the re-engagement of LL in the community would be anything but a "waste." To the contrary, it would probably rank among the greater contributions to the Koha project. (No one denies the large contribution LL has made to Koha nor despises it. The complaint is with how they have handled themselves in the light of other business pressures.)
Let me ask a very basic question, which I think is at the heart of this matter. How is LibLime's actions different from those of software.coop, the work done for the Learning Access Institute, and HTL? All have code that, so far as I can tell, have not been released back to TKC,* despite open source licensing agreements. What makes this stink bigger? *If I'm wrong, please correct me. Lard knows I frequently am. :-)
It is my humble opinion that your organization could very possibly be in the best position to make such a valuable contribution to this community.
Thank you. But as it's been said before, corporations have the right to profit and programmers have the right to get paid. I have another question that maybe someone can help me with. I've been reading a bit about git and it seems like a real pain to use while you're developing code. Afterwards, when you're writing it, it seems like a decent tool for dissemination, but before you're done it seems really cumbersome. Is there something I'm missing? http://git.or.cz/course/svn.html#share Thanks, -- Ben
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Ben Ide <benide@gmail.com> wrote:
Replies inline..
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Chris Nighswonger <cnighswonger@foundations.edu> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we've gotten off track here a bit.
Maybe not too far off. :-) The entire issue with the links devolves to the continued silence by LL to any requests; even those by all standards reasonable.
So, if LibLime promised to make all their code available after customer signoff, would this reduce all of this discussion to a footnote in Koha's history? Because this promise has been made on more than one occasion.
Whatever happens with the code - the links still need to be fixed - sorry if I sound like a broken record here - but the demo links on koha.org do not go to demos of a version of Koha that is available right now! The only version that is available right now is the one(s) in the public repositories and those should be the only ones that are being demoed on the Koha.org site - all others can be demoed on the sites of those who wrote them. For me, this is not an LL issue - or an LEK issue - it's a Koha issue - we need demos of Koha up on Koha.org - plain and simple.
Thanks, -- Ben _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Ben Ide asked:
[...] How is LibLime's actions different from those of software.coop, the work done for the Learning Access Institute, and HTL?
Well, with software.coop, I think the main differences are that: 1. LibLime (17 developers in Koha git log up to rel_3_0) seems much bigger than software.coop (5 members, of which 3 have touched Koha so far because we're trying to grow sustainably); 2. LEK appears to be from choice, rather than from any other community member backing them into it. I've been quite clear about two things about our fork:- 1. the software.coop fork occurred primarily because of enthusiastic adoption of non-essential new upstream library features which didn't work on some of our platforms in the time we needed it. When I started to work around that problem, a LibLime developer stated outright that "Nobody else wants to do this, and for good reason, since performance will suffer greatly". (It didn't FWIW.) So, mainline Koha wasn't going to work for us. What choice did the community give us? It seemed like a clear "fork or quit" situation that you put us in. 2. we have been reconciling our fork with the koha.org releases and I have promised to push anything significant (probably to gitorious I think) as soon as I get spare worker time. We will not be throwing it over the wall in a "contribution phase of development [at] the end of the cycle". A little stuff has already appeared in patches and we've tried to contribute otherwise too. In short, we do not expect to externalise the cost of our fork to the community. If anyone wants to pay us to merge, that would be great, but I don't expect it. So please stop attacking us: "concern for community" is one of our business's basic principles, so you know we'll come good. I think we're also the only for-service (rather than for-profit) vendor. I agree that it's pretty certain that some other Koha developers have private forks which they haven't been this open about and haven't yet promised to reconcile (some have, which I applaud). It would be good if their Koha users held them to account and at least got a similar contribution promise from them to that which I've made and which some others have done/started. [...]
It is my humble opinion that your organization could very possibly be in the best position to make such a valuable contribution to this community.
Thank you. But as it's been said before, corporations have the right to profit and programmers have the right to get paid.
So what does that mean? You won't help get a similar promise? Also, I don't know who said that, but I feel they're wrong. Programmers have the right to get paid a living wage, but corporations have no *right* to profit from community resources any more than librarians have a right to sell their community's books and keep the money.
I have another question that maybe someone can help me with. I've been reading a bit about git and it seems like a real pain to use while you're developing code. Afterwards, when you're writing it, it seems like a decent tool for dissemination, but before you're done it seems really cumbersome. Is there something I'm missing?
Some GUI tools and git stash, perhaps? Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
I was not aware of this situation. Could you explain what features your version has that aren't in standard Koha? Thanks, Kyle
1. the software.coop fork occurred primarily because of enthusiastic adoption of non-essential new upstream library features which didn't work on some of our platforms in the time we needed it. When I started to work around that problem, a LibLime developer stated outright that "Nobody else wants to do this, and for good reason, since performance will suffer greatly". (It didn't FWIW.) So, mainline Koha wasn't going to work for us. What choice did the community give us? It seemed like a clear "fork or quit" situation that you put us in.
http://www.kylehall.info Information Technology Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org ) On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:27 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Ben Ide asked:
[...] How is LibLime's actions different from those of software.coop, the work done for the Learning Access Institute, and HTL?
Well, with software.coop, I think the main differences are that:
1. LibLime (17 developers in Koha git log up to rel_3_0) seems much bigger than software.coop (5 members, of which 3 have touched Koha so far because we're trying to grow sustainably);
2. LEK appears to be from choice, rather than from any other community member backing them into it.
I've been quite clear about two things about our fork:-
1. the software.coop fork occurred primarily because of enthusiastic adoption of non-essential new upstream library features which didn't work on some of our platforms in the time we needed it. When I started to work around that problem, a LibLime developer stated outright that "Nobody else wants to do this, and for good reason, since performance will suffer greatly". (It didn't FWIW.) So, mainline Koha wasn't going to work for us. What choice did the community give us? It seemed like a clear "fork or quit" situation that you put us in.
2. we have been reconciling our fork with the koha.org releases and I have promised to push anything significant (probably to gitorious I think) as soon as I get spare worker time. We will not be throwing it over the wall in a "contribution phase of development [at] the end of the cycle". A little stuff has already appeared in patches and we've tried to contribute otherwise too.
In short, we do not expect to externalise the cost of our fork to the community. If anyone wants to pay us to merge, that would be great, but I don't expect it.
So please stop attacking us: "concern for community" is one of our business's basic principles, so you know we'll come good. I think we're also the only for-service (rather than for-profit) vendor.
I agree that it's pretty certain that some other Koha developers have private forks which they haven't been this open about and haven't yet promised to reconcile (some have, which I applaud). It would be good if their Koha users held them to account and at least got a similar contribution promise from them to that which I've made and which some others have done/started.
[...]
It is my humble opinion that your organization could very possibly be in the best position to make such a valuable contribution to this community.
Thank you. But as it's been said before, corporations have the right to profit and programmers have the right to get paid.
So what does that mean? You won't help get a similar promise?
Also, I don't know who said that, but I feel they're wrong. Programmers have the right to get paid a living wage, but corporations have no *right* to profit from community resources any more than librarians have a right to sell their community's books and keep the money.
I have another question that maybe someone can help me with. I've been reading a bit about git and it seems like a real pain to use while you're developing code. Afterwards, when you're writing it, it seems like a decent tool for dissemination, but before you're done it seems really cumbersome. Is there something I'm missing?
Some GUI tools and git stash, perhaps?
Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster 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 Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Kyle Hall asked:
I was not aware of this situation. Could you explain what features your version has that aren't in standard Koha?
It felt to me like everyone saw that spat, but I guess it wasn't so. As mentioned, the main "feature" was the temporary removal of some calls on non-essential new upstream library features. We've added those back now they work for us (and we've ditched MacOS X fink). I think things currently in our version but not yet on koha.org include: - EDIFACT support (bugs 2443 and 3561); - various search enhancements; - some external resource service connections. There are also things that started in our fork but have already been submitted as patches, at least in part: a fixed/enhanced patron import tool (bugs.koha.org 2287 and 3243); RFID-USB drivers (more work to do on this to get the perl modules packaged and published - bug 2244); and bugfixed sessionlog (bug 3295). One reason I don't have a concise list is that I think some of our work was credited to another vendor when it was pushed to git.koha.org and the commit ID changed - I didn't realise anyone was going to cite contribution figures, nor how much it would complicate the merge. I didn't care as long as the fix got shared. I'm pretty sure there's more stuff which will come to light as I untangle our git branches, but I suspect you'd prefer me to get on with sorting this out, rather than making a comprehensive fork feature list. It's not like the co-op is actively selling our development version of Koha: these features will be contributed back and we sell on the basis of koha.org features (but maybe that should change since my edit access was removed some months ago). Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
MJ Ray a écrit :
There are also things that started in our fork but have already been submitted as patches, at least in part: a fixed/enhanced patron import tool (bugs.koha.org 2287 and 3243); RFID-USB drivers (more work to do on this to get the perl modules packaged and published - bug 2244); and bugfixed sessionlog (bug 3295).
and, anyway, your situation is much different than LL/LEK: - you share the patches immediatly if we want it - you don't advertise as 'improved version blabla' - a demo on koha.org doesn't point to this source-unreleased version so, I think the comparison is irrelevant. + i'm a fan of : "with great power comes great responsabilities". Chris C, LibLime and BibLibre, as Koha leaders, have great responsabilities in the direction they choose to follow. -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
MJ Ray a écrit :
There are also things that started in our fork but have already been submitted as patches, at least in part: a fixed/enhanced patron import tool (bugs.koha.org 2287 and 3243); RFID-USB drivers (more work to do on this to get the perl modules packaged and published - bug 2244); and bugfixed sessionlog (bug 3295).
Sounds like some nice features. Keep up the good work!
and, anyway, your situation is much different than LL/LEK: - you share the patches immediatly if we want it - you don't advertise as 'improved version blabla' - a demo on koha.org doesn't point to this source-unreleased version
so, I think the comparison is irrelevant.
Agreed.
+ i'm a fan of : "with great power comes great responsabilities". Chris C, LibLime and BibLibre, as Koha leaders, have great responsabilities in the direction they choose to follow.
Paul++ Kyle
-- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
I have another question that maybe someone can help me with. I've been reading a bit about git and it seems like a real pain to use while you're developing code.
quite the opposite Ben - git *reduces* the pain of developing code. (and merging code, sharing code, and deploying code to production servers too)
Afterwards, when you're writing it, it seems like a decent tool for dissemination, but before you're done it seems really cumbersome.
nah, its the least cumbersome of any RCS that i've ever used by miles. three cheers for MJ Ray, who suggested we switch to git for the Koha project. what a difference it has made!
Mason James a écrit :
nah, its the least cumbersome of any RCS that i've ever used by miles.
three cheers for MJ Ray, who suggested we switch to git for the Koha project.
And another one to joshua, that decided to do the move, even if it was in the middle of a major version development. I was against this timeline, but it was a very very good decision. Even if everybody had to deal with git learning curve. The + is MUCH bigger than this small -
what a difference it has made!
yep. -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
It does help explain. Thank you. My apologies if it seemed like I was attacking your group. I assure you, that was not my intent. (Never is, really.) I wanted to mention some examples, and -- because you have been so open about it -- the software.coop worked. Thanks, -- Ben On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:27 AM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Ben Ide asked:
[...] How is LibLime's actions different from those of software.coop, the work done for the Learning Access Institute, and HTL?
Well, with software.coop, I think the main differences are that:
1. LibLime (17 developers in Koha git log up to rel_3_0) seems much bigger than software.coop (5 members, of which 3 have touched Koha so far because we're trying to grow sustainably);
2. LEK appears to be from choice, rather than from any other community member backing them into it.
I've been quite clear about two things about our fork:-
1. the software.coop fork occurred primarily because of enthusiastic adoption of non-essential new upstream library features which didn't work on some of our platforms in the time we needed it. When I started to work around that problem, a LibLime developer stated outright that "Nobody else wants to do this, and for good reason, since performance will suffer greatly". (It didn't FWIW.) So, mainline Koha wasn't going to work for us. What choice did the community give us? It seemed like a clear "fork or quit" situation that you put us in.
2. we have been reconciling our fork with the koha.org releases and I have promised to push anything significant (probably to gitorious I think) as soon as I get spare worker time. We will not be throwing it over the wall in a "contribution phase of development [at] the end of the cycle". A little stuff has already appeared in patches and we've tried to contribute otherwise too.
In short, we do not expect to externalise the cost of our fork to the community. If anyone wants to pay us to merge, that would be great, but I don't expect it.
So please stop attacking us: "concern for community" is one of our business's basic principles, so you know we'll come good. I think we're also the only for-service (rather than for-profit) vendor.
I agree that it's pretty certain that some other Koha developers have private forks which they haven't been this open about and haven't yet promised to reconcile (some have, which I applaud). It would be good if their Koha users held them to account and at least got a similar contribution promise from them to that which I've made and which some others have done/started.
[...]
It is my humble opinion that your organization could very possibly be in the best position to make such a valuable contribution to this community.
Thank you. But as it's been said before, corporations have the right to profit and programmers have the right to get paid.
So what does that mean? You won't help get a similar promise?
Also, I don't know who said that, but I feel they're wrong. Programmers have the right to get paid a living wage, but corporations have no *right* to profit from community resources any more than librarians have a right to sell their community's books and keep the money.
I have another question that maybe someone can help me with. I've been reading a bit about git and it seems like a real pain to use while you're developing code. Afterwards, when you're writing it, it seems like a decent tool for dissemination, but before you're done it seems really cumbersome. Is there something I'm missing?
Some GUI tools and git stash, perhaps?
Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
Ben Ide wrote: [...replying to the idea that Josh should post...]
To what advantage? Why should he send another missive here when all have been content to ignore the previous ones?
Ah yes, the top one of which is the LibLime Enterprise Koha Q&A which includes both that "LibLime Enterprise Koha is not a 'fork' of Koha" and "Our new approach moves the contribution phase of development to the end of the cycle" - that's to say, it's a fork until it's finished. When the message contradicts itself like that, anyone who picks either part can be accused of ignoring it! So no-one who discusses LL at all can win at the moment...
Perhaps you could request this of Josh or encourage the individual at your organization who is responsible for your relationship to LL to request it of Josh?
Again, what on earth would be the advantage of that? To me, it just seems like a waste of a busy person's time.
It depends how much one values the community. Last year, about a third of the co-op's time was spent on community participation. It benefits both our workers and our customers to have good communities. I hope the climate here will improve, with less firey emails soon. I can understand the frustration, but I know from experience that "what on earth" questions don't get good answers. I hope LibLime's customers can encourage to get involved or sell the community assets to a vendor-neutral community org. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) LMS developer and webmaster at | software www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
participants (7)
-
Ben Ide -
Chris Nighswonger -
Kyle Hall -
Mason James -
MJ Ray -
Nicole Engard -
Paul Poulain