As usual, while I know where you're coming from ... are we saying we should all refrain from answering the survey and showing that Koha is used worldwide simply because the results aren't submitted as open source? Seems like shooting ourselves in the foot to me. Nicole On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:29 PM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:

Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com>

...

Marshall Breeding has published his annual Library Automation Perceptions Report: http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2009.pl  Koha came out pretty darn well when independently hosted.  What I'm surprised about is that the non-US Koha support companies are missing. This means that next year we need to get more international Koha libraries to answer the survey!!

Some already answer, but they were classified as Koha -- Independent even when they are hosted by us (and not just us installing and/or supporting their server).

The big problem I have with that survey is that libraries give Marshall Breeding their data, but the survey results are not given back under any free and open source software terms.  It seems rather unjust to ask librarians to spend their time on something unequal like that, doesn't it?

Hope that explains, -- 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

I have found the lib-web-cats database and Marshall Breeding's surveys and technical articles all very useful indeed. We have recently praised his map of Koha libraries, which is just one of the great tools he offers openly to us all. If he asks for a little data from libraries to help him produce these valuable tools, I don't think it is unjust, nor do I mind spending the time to make sure his results are accurate and inclusive. So, I'm with Nicole - Koha libraries should be aware of and I hope will choose to participate in the surveys that produce these tools, at least in order to make sure that a fair picture of Koha is presented in this well known and widely respected resource. Agnes Nicole Engard wrote:

As usual, while I know where you're coming from ... are we saying we should all refrain from answering the survey and showing that Koha is used worldwide simply because the results aren't submitted as open source? Seems like shooting ourselves in the foot to me.

Nicole

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:29 PM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:

...

Nicole Engard <nengard@gmail.com>

...

Marshall Breeding has published his annual Library Automation Perceptions Report: http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2009.pl Koha came out pretty darn well when independently hosted. What I'm surprised about is that the non-US Koha support companies are missing. This means that next year we need to get more international Koha libraries to answer the survey!!

Some already answer, but they were classified as Koha -- Independent even when they are hosted by us (and not just us installing and/or supporting their server).

The big problem I have with that survey is that libraries give Marshall Breeding their data, but the survey results are not given back under any free and open source software terms. It seems rather unjust to ask librarians to spend their time on something unequal like that, doesn't it?

Hope that explains, -- 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

_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha

-- Agnes Rivers-Moore Assistant Librarian Hanover Public Library

Lori Ayre

[...] As long as libraries have control over the data they've provided, it doesn't seem like it is worth getting all steamed up even if it isn't officially released under an open source license.

Although I'd much prefer it if people didn't forget freedom when referring to free and open source software, I'm not getting all steamed up about it. I just pointed out a couple of hiccoughs and explained why I wouldn't promote the current Perceptions survey. Others have been much harsher critics than me: http://blog.ecorrado.us/2010/01/26/library-perceptions-gossip/ http://coffeecode.net/archives/209-In-which-I-perceive-that-gossip-is-not-sc... 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

"Breeding, Marshall" <marshall.breeding@Vanderbilt.Edu>

I have done all that I can to make the survey transparent as possible. I don't think that you will find many other examples of surveys that provide the tools that I do to make the results available in the most open way reasonable. I do not reveal the responses of the individual libraries, but can you point to any other survey that publishes data in a way that exposes responses in that way? [...]

I had this misunderstanding raised up about another library survey that I commented on recently. To be clear, I'm not asking for the individual libraries' details or anything which identifies them, but it would be better if the dataset (suitably anonymised) is published, so that the conclusions can be verified. As the sign by Dr Janacek's office door used to say: In god we trust - all others must bring data. The second aspect is for that dataset to be shared under some free and open source software (FOSS) terms. Whether a copyright and/or database licence is required is down to local laws, I think, but MIT/Expat and Open Database Licence seem to be suitable, among others. There are lots of examples of surveys that publish the responses, particularly government-run ones, but it seems to be unusual for library surveys. In the UK, http://www.data.gov.uk/ has recently joined http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ to help index, track and analyse all the datasets being generated by government. Why are independent library surveys lagging behind on publication? So, I don't think having one website with a few tools is the most open way reasonable. Sharing them under an open license and uploading to something like the Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network would be more open.

In lib-web-cats each organization that provides Koha support can have the libraries with which they have contracts coded accordingly.

Can you give a quick guide as to how, please? My test edit (soon after the co-op was added as a vendor) has not appeared. Moreover, when I ask to update a library, the vendor names appears to be confused with the Automation System, which causes obvious problems for libraries with automation systems supplied by multiple vendors. [...]

I hope that the survey provides some measure of library perceptions and attitudes toward their ILS products and organizations involved. This is the library's chance to have their voices heard. It may not always be what the companies want to hear.

That seems a disappointingly divisive library-v-company view. The Koha community includes libraries as much as they want, so maybe this isn't a strong selling point of the survey for Koha libraries and that's another reason for the surprisingly weak showing. For a couple of other discussions of this, see the recent KUDOS thread, http://library-matters.blogspot.com/2010/01/users-vs-developers-not-in-my-un... and http://www.web2learning.net/archives/3434

I do appreciate your comments and the concerns you express. I want this to be a survey that everyone believes is done in a fair and unbiased way.

I've no reason to believe it's not unbiased, but I don't think it's particularly fair to ask people to share the basic data openly and then not share the survey results as openly. Hope that explains, -- 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