Fwd: [Web4lib] Request to participate in 2010 Library Technology Guides automation survey
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Breeding, Marshall <marshall.breeding@vanderbilt.edu> Date: Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:17 PM Subject: [Web4lib] Request to participate in 2010 Library Technology Guides automation survey To: "web4lib@webjunction.org" <web4lib@webjunction.org> Please respond to the 2010 library automation perceptions survey. This page describes how to participate: http://www.librarytechnology.org/blog.pl?ThreadID=184&BlogID=1 More details: For the last three years I have conducted a survey and written a report on the perceptions that libraries form of the quality of the core automation products they use and their satisfaction with the service they receive. Results from previous editions: http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2009.pl http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2008.pl http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2007.pl I have begun to collect data for the 2010 edition of the survey. This is an opportunity for libraries to register their impressions of the ILS product they use, its vendor, and the quality of support delivered. Is support getting better or worse? The survey also probes at considerations for migrating to new systems and the level of interest in open source ILS. While the numeric rating scales support the statistical results of the study, it's the comments offered that provide the most insight into the current state of library automation satisfaction. Please help your fellow libraries who might be in the process of evaluating library automation options by responding to the survey. Any information regarding vendor performance and product quality can be helpful when making strategic decisions regarding automation alternatives. A large number of responses strengthen the impact of the survey and the subsequent report. If you have responded to previous editions of the survey, please give your responses again this year. It's very helpful to understand whether things are getting better or worse. As with the previous versions of the survey, only one response per library is allowed. While all the individuals that work in a library may have their own opinions, please respond to the extent that you can from the general experiences of your library. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the survey. Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technology and Research Vanderbilt University Library Editor, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org<http://www.librarytechnology.org/> _______________________________________________ Web4lib mailing list Web4lib@webjunction.org http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/
Please respond to the 2010 library automation perceptions survey. This page describes how to participate: http://www.librarytechnology.org/blog.pl?ThreadID=184&BlogID=1
Does the 2010 edition split ILS from suppliers yet? I think we advised our libraries to list as "Koha - Independent" last year in order to avoid the "not enough responses" silliness. Also, we're not the sole support provider to some of our libraries. Is there an Independent option for RFID? Are the anonymised responses available under Creative Commons BY, ODbL or other broadly FOSS terms? Can someone help me get a reply from Marshall Breeding? ;-) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
MJ, Does the 2010 edition split ILS from suppliers yet? I think we advised our libraries to list as "Koha - Independent" last year in order to avoid the "not enough responses" silliness. Also, we're not the sole support provider to some of our libraries. -With Koha, unlike the other ILS products, I have an association between the product and the support provider. I'm open to either aggregating them together or to treat the ILS / Vendor pairs separately. I've already had one inquiry suggesting that they not be aggregated. How common is it that a library will sign with multiple support vendors for Koha support? I'm not aware that this is a common arrangement at all. Is there an Independent option for RFID? -This survey does not address RFID products. I've recently added RFID products and vendors to what lib-web-cats tracks, but there is not sufficient data to support this kind of a survey yet. There are many categories of products libraries use for technology support, this one focuses on the ILS and discovery products. Are the anonymised responses available under Creative Commons BY, ODbL or other broadly FOSS terms? -No. I publish the statistics as openly as I can, including the redacted comments. I reveal the totals of all numeric responses. It would be a great deal of work to sanitize the data in a way that would ensure the privacy of respondents. Can someone help me get a reply from Marshall Breeding? ;-) -Yes. I responded. Just like I did last year to your concerns. -I do hope that all libraries running Koha will respond to the survey. Many libraries are considering moving to open source ILS products and they deserve to benefit from the knowledge of the libraries that have already implemented Koha. Best regards, -marshall Marshall Breeding Editor, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org http://twitter.com/mbreeding -----Original Message----- From: koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz [mailto:koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz] On Behalf Of MJ Ray Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:49 AM To: koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Subject: Re: [Koha] Fwd: [Web4lib] Request to participate in 2010 Library Technology Guides automation survey
Please respond to the 2010 library automation perceptions survey. This page describes how to participate: http://www.librarytechnology.org/blog.pl?ThreadID=184&BlogID=1
Does the 2010 edition split ILS from suppliers yet? I think we advised our libraries to list as "Koha - Independent" last year in order to avoid the "not enough responses" silliness. Also, we're not the sole support provider to some of our libraries. Is there an Independent option for RFID? Are the anonymised responses available under Creative Commons BY, ODbL or other broadly FOSS terms? Can someone help me get a reply from Marshall Breeding? ;-) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Le 10/12/2010 14:10, Breeding, Marshall a écrit :
MJ, Hi Marshall, MJ & the list Does the 2010 edition split ILS from suppliers yet? I think we advised our libraries to list as "Koha - Independent" last year in order to avoid the "not enough responses" silliness. Also, we're not the sole support provider to some of our libraries.
-With Koha, unlike the other ILS products, I have an association between the product and the support provider. I'm open to either aggregating them together or to treat the ILS / Vendor pairs separately. I've already had one inquiry suggesting that they not be aggregated. I agree fully with having koha - vendor clearly separated. It's then easy to add, and clearly shows there are a lot of Koha support companies.
-- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
Paul Poulain wrote:
I agree fully with having koha - vendor clearly separated. It's then easy to add, and clearly shows there are a lot of Koha support companies.
It doesn't accurately show the number of Koha support companies, everyone except PTFS/LibLime was excluded from the survey conclusions last year because they were "not in sufficient numbers to be included in the summary tables" and it means the multi-provider situations cannot be shown. Why would anyone prefer this? Actually, I'm sure LTG has published several of the "X partners with Y to work on Koha" null press releases, so why isn't Marshall aware of this? Examples, picking on ByWater: http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=15119 http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=14466 http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=14157 Confused x2, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
Marshall, First off, thanks for putting out this survey, and maintaining this database. It's a great tool for libraries. Secondly, I completely agree with the idea of splitting product and support company. This would not only allow for products with multiple possible support options (Koha and Evergreen), but also support companies with multiple ILS products. I think it's good data design. I'd happily help with the database architecture and scripting work, if you need some extra hands to make that happen. In my experience, a library or consortia contracting with multiple support companies simultaneously is pretty rare, but it can happen in certain instances. Perhaps they purchase hosting and support from one company, and development from another. When I was at NYU Health Sciences Libraries, we were an independent Koha installation, but we purchased training from ByWater Solutions. In other these cases, I'm talking about buying different kinds of service from different vendors; I don't think anyone would want the logistical headache of buying support services from two separate companies at the same time. So if you're just tracking support services, allowing for multiple vendors probably wouldn't be worth the time to add. Best wishes, -Ian On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Breeding, Marshall < marshall.breeding@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
MJ,
Does the 2010 edition split ILS from suppliers yet? I think we advised our libraries to list as "Koha - Independent" last year in order to avoid the "not enough responses" silliness. Also, we're not the sole support provider to some of our libraries.
-With Koha, unlike the other ILS products, I have an association between the product and the support provider. I'm open to either aggregating them together or to treat the ILS / Vendor pairs separately. I've already had one inquiry suggesting that they not be aggregated.
How common is it that a library will sign with multiple support vendors for Koha support? I'm not aware that this is a common arrangement at all.
Is there an Independent option for RFID?
-This survey does not address RFID products. I've recently added RFID products and vendors to what lib-web-cats tracks, but there is not sufficient data to support this kind of a survey yet. There are many categories of products libraries use for technology support, this one focuses on the ILS and discovery products.
Are the anonymised responses available under Creative Commons BY, ODbL or other broadly FOSS terms?
-No. I publish the statistics as openly as I can, including the redacted comments. I reveal the totals of all numeric responses. It would be a great deal of work to sanitize the data in a way that would ensure the privacy of respondents.
Can someone help me get a reply from Marshall Breeding? ;-)
-Yes. I responded. Just like I did last year to your concerns.
-I do hope that all libraries running Koha will respond to the survey. Many libraries are considering moving to open source ILS products and they deserve to benefit from the knowledge of the libraries that have already implemented Koha.
Best regards,
-marshall
Marshall Breeding Editor, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org http://twitter.com/mbreeding
-----Original Message----- From: koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz [mailto: koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz] On Behalf Of MJ Ray Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:49 AM To: koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Subject: Re: [Koha] Fwd: [Web4lib] Request to participate in 2010 Library Technology Guides automation survey
Please respond to the 2010 library automation perceptions survey. This page describes how to participate: http://www.librarytechnology.org/blog.pl?ThreadID=184&BlogID=1
Does the 2010 edition split ILS from suppliers yet? I think we advised our libraries to list as "Koha - Independent" last year in order to avoid the "not enough responses" silliness. Also, we're not the sole support provider to some of our libraries.
Is there an Independent option for RFID?
Are the anonymised responses available under Creative Commons BY, ODbL or other broadly FOSS terms?
Can someone help me get a reply from Marshall Breeding? ;-)
Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com Twitter: @sekjal
Marshall, You, or we, should agree on some definitions. If a library is hosted by ByWater for example, I would consider that a "Koha - ByWater" library. But if they are running their own system and received migration help fro ByWater, does that make them a "Koha - ByWater" library or an independent library? If they have a support contract with ByWater....are they no longer independent? What if a library was migrated by Liblime and now has a support contract with ByWater? These are all real scenarios and it would be useful if we had some shared understanding about what we are conveying in Marshall's survey. Just to put something out there to respond to...my recommendation is to list a library as Independent unless it is hosted or under a support contract with a service provider. And, it's true that the threshold of responses is very much diluted in this case if we make all these distinctions so I would like to see every Koha and Evergreen installation represented somehow or at least lower the threshold (of unique combinations of product - support provider?) And I too very much appreciate your hard work on this, Marshall. Lori 2010/12/10 Ian Walls <ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com>
Marshall,
First off, thanks for putting out this survey, and maintaining this database. It's a great tool for libraries.
Secondly, I completely agree with the idea of splitting product and support company. This would not only allow for products with multiple possible support options (Koha and Evergreen), but also support companies with multiple ILS products. I think it's good data design. I'd happily help with the database architecture and scripting work, if you need some extra hands to make that happen.
In my experience, a library or consortia contracting with multiple support companies simultaneously is pretty rare, but it can happen in certain instances. Perhaps they purchase hosting and support from one company, and development from another. When I was at NYU Health Sciences Libraries, we were an independent Koha installation, but we purchased training from ByWater Solutions. In other these cases, I'm talking about buying different kinds of service from different vendors; I don't think anyone would want the logistical headache of buying support services from two separate companies at the same time. So if you're just tracking support services, allowing for multiple vendors probably wouldn't be worth the time to add.
Best wishes,
-Ian
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Breeding, Marshall < marshall.breeding@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
MJ,
Does the 2010 edition split ILS from suppliers yet? I think we advised our libraries to list as "Koha - Independent" last year in order to avoid the "not enough responses" silliness. Also, we're not the sole support provider to some of our libraries.
-With Koha, unlike the other ILS products, I have an association between the product and the support provider. I'm open to either aggregating them together or to treat the ILS / Vendor pairs separately. I've already had one inquiry suggesting that they not be aggregated.
How common is it that a library will sign with multiple support vendors for Koha support? I'm not aware that this is a common arrangement at all.
Is there an Independent option for RFID?
-This survey does not address RFID products. I've recently added RFID products and vendors to what lib-web-cats tracks, but there is not sufficient data to support this kind of a survey yet. There are many categories of products libraries use for technology support, this one focuses on the ILS and discovery products.
Are the anonymised responses available under Creative Commons BY, ODbL or other broadly FOSS terms?
-No. I publish the statistics as openly as I can, including the redacted comments. I reveal the totals of all numeric responses. It would be a great deal of work to sanitize the data in a way that would ensure the privacy of respondents.
Can someone help me get a reply from Marshall Breeding? ;-)
-Yes. I responded. Just like I did last year to your concerns.
-I do hope that all libraries running Koha will respond to the survey. Many libraries are considering moving to open source ILS products and they deserve to benefit from the knowledge of the libraries that have already implemented Koha.
Best regards,
-marshall
Marshall Breeding Editor, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org http://twitter.com/mbreeding
-----Original Message----- From: koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz [mailto: koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz] On Behalf Of MJ Ray Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:49 AM To: koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Subject: Re: [Koha] Fwd: [Web4lib] Request to participate in 2010 Library Technology Guides automation survey
Please respond to the 2010 library automation perceptions survey. This page describes how to participate: http://www.librarytechnology.org/blog.pl?ThreadID=184&BlogID=1
Does the 2010 edition split ILS from suppliers yet? I think we advised our libraries to list as "Koha - Independent" last year in order to avoid the "not enough responses" silliness. Also, we're not the sole support provider to some of our libraries.
Is there an Independent option for RFID?
Are the anonymised responses available under Creative Commons BY, ODbL or other broadly FOSS terms?
Can someone help me get a reply from Marshall Breeding? ;-)
Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com Twitter: @sekjal
_______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lori Bowen Ayre // Library Technology Consultant The Galecia Group // www.galecia.com (707) 763-6869 // Lori.Ayre@galecia.com <Lori.Ayre@galecia.com>Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID, filtering, workflow optimization, and materials handling =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
All I'm trying to be as responsive as I can be regarding how to treat Koha and the open source ILS products. In general, I think that the selection of Koha label used in lib-web-cats should designate a current primary commercial support contract. I would be interested to hear if there are libraries that actually have support contracts with multiple support firms. It may be that there are informal working relationships, but please give us some examples of multiple paid support contracts. If there are libraries that initially contracted for migration services, but are self-hosted with no ongoing support contract that they should shift over to Koha - Independent after the first year. It's difficult or impossible for me to know, so I hope that libraries and support firms might help me keep this information current. Overall, I think that Koha gets a great deal of exposure by being represented in lib-web-cats and the various reports and maps it generates. I do hope that libraries and support firms will help be sure that all libraries running Koha are included. http://www.librarytechnology.org/map.pl?ILS=Koha http://www.librarytechnology.org/libraries.pl?ILS=Koha Here is a list of the Koha designations currently defined in lib-web-cats. I've always added new ones any time that the need has been brought to my attention or that I have discovered on my own a library running Koha with support from a firm not already listed. Koha -- Anant Anant Corporation Koha -- BibLibre BibLibre Koha -- BSZ Open Source Koha -- ByWater Solutions ByWater Solutions Koha -- CALYX CALYX information essentials Koha -- Catalyst Catalyst IT Ltd Koha -- Independent Open Source Koha -- LibLime LibLime Koha -- Libriotech Libriotech Koha -- LMP LMP Koha -- Nucsoft Nucsoft OSS Labs Koha -- PakLAG Pakistan Library Automation Group Koha -- Prosentient Systems Prosentient Systems Koha -- PTFS PTFS Koha -- PTFS Europe PTFS Europe Koha -- Software.Coop Software.Coop I'm not necessarily thrilled with this approach to identifying the ILS products and support providers and may rework it at some point in the future, but not within the timeframe of this year's survey. -marshall Marshall Breeding Editor, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org<mailto:marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org> http://twitter.com/mbreeding From: loriayre@gmail.com [mailto:loriayre@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Lori Bowen Ayre Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 9:50 AM To: Ian Walls; Breeding, Marshall Cc: koha@lists.katipo.co.nz Subject: Re: [Koha] Fwd: [Web4lib] Request to participate in 2010 Library Technology Guides automation survey Marshall, You, or we, should agree on some definitions. If a library is hosted by ByWater for example, I would consider that a "Koha - ByWater" library. But if they are running their own system and received migration help fro ByWater, does that make them a "Koha - ByWater" library or an independent library? If they have a support contract with ByWater....are they no longer independent? What if a library was migrated by Liblime and now has a support contract with ByWater? These are all real scenarios and it would be useful if we had some shared understanding about what we are conveying in Marshall's survey. Just to put something out there to respond to...my recommendation is to list a library as Independent unless it is hosted or under a support contract with a service provider. And, it's true that the threshold of responses is very much diluted in this case if we make all these distinctions so I would like to see every Koha and Evergreen installation represented somehow or at least lower the threshold (of unique combinations of product - support provider?) And I too very much appreciate your hard work on this, Marshall. Lori 2010/12/10 Ian Walls <ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com<mailto:ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com>> Marshall, First off, thanks for putting out this survey, and maintaining this database. It's a great tool for libraries. Secondly, I completely agree with the idea of splitting product and support company. This would not only allow for products with multiple possible support options (Koha and Evergreen), but also support companies with multiple ILS products. I think it's good data design. I'd happily help with the database architecture and scripting work, if you need some extra hands to make that happen. In my experience, a library or consortia contracting with multiple support companies simultaneously is pretty rare, but it can happen in certain instances. Perhaps they purchase hosting and support from one company, and development from another. When I was at NYU Health Sciences Libraries, we were an independent Koha installation, but we purchased training from ByWater Solutions. In other these cases, I'm talking about buying different kinds of service from different vendors; I don't think anyone would want the logistical headache of buying support services from two separate companies at the same time. So if you're just tracking support services, allowing for multiple vendors probably wouldn't be worth the time to add. Best wishes, -Ian On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Breeding, Marshall <marshall.breeding@vanderbilt.edu<mailto:marshall.breeding@vanderbilt.edu>> wrote: MJ, Does the 2010 edition split ILS from suppliers yet? I think we advised our libraries to list as "Koha - Independent" last year in order to avoid the "not enough responses" silliness. Also, we're not the sole support provider to some of our libraries. -With Koha, unlike the other ILS products, I have an association between the product and the support provider. I'm open to either aggregating them together or to treat the ILS / Vendor pairs separately. I've already had one inquiry suggesting that they not be aggregated. How common is it that a library will sign with multiple support vendors for Koha support? I'm not aware that this is a common arrangement at all. Is there an Independent option for RFID? -This survey does not address RFID products. I've recently added RFID products and vendors to what lib-web-cats tracks, but there is not sufficient data to support this kind of a survey yet. There are many categories of products libraries use for technology support, this one focuses on the ILS and discovery products. Are the anonymised responses available under Creative Commons BY, ODbL or other broadly FOSS terms? -No. I publish the statistics as openly as I can, including the redacted comments. I reveal the totals of all numeric responses. It would be a great deal of work to sanitize the data in a way that would ensure the privacy of respondents. Can someone help me get a reply from Marshall Breeding? ;-) -Yes. I responded. Just like I did last year to your concerns. -I do hope that all libraries running Koha will respond to the survey. Many libraries are considering moving to open source ILS products and they deserve to benefit from the knowledge of the libraries that have already implemented Koha. Best regards, -marshall Marshall Breeding Editor, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org<mailto:marshall.breeding@librarytechnology.org> http://twitter.com/mbreeding -----Original Message----- From: koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz<mailto:koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz> [mailto:koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz<mailto:koha-bounces@lists.katipo.co.nz>] On Behalf Of MJ Ray Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 5:49 AM To: koha@lists.katipo.co.nz<mailto:koha@lists.katipo.co.nz> Subject: Re: [Koha] Fwd: [Web4lib] Request to participate in 2010 Library Technology Guides automation survey
Please respond to the 2010 library automation perceptions survey. This page describes how to participate: http://www.librarytechnology.org/blog.pl?ThreadID=184&BlogID=1
Does the 2010 edition split ILS from suppliers yet? I think we advised our libraries to list as "Koha - Independent" last year in order to avoid the "not enough responses" silliness. Also, we're not the sole support provider to some of our libraries. Is there an Independent option for RFID? Are the anonymised responses available under Creative Commons BY, ODbL or other broadly FOSS terms? Can someone help me get a reply from Marshall Breeding? ;-) Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop<http://www.software.coop>, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz<mailto:Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz<mailto:Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com<mailto:ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com> Twitter: @sekjal _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz<mailto:Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lori Bowen Ayre // Library Technology Consultant The Galecia Group // www.galecia.com<http://www.galecia.com/> (707) 763-6869 // Lori.Ayre@galecia.com<mailto:Lori.Ayre@galecia.com> Specializing in open source ILS solutions, RFID, filtering, workflow optimization, and materials handling =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Breeding, Marshall wrote:
-With Koha, unlike the other ILS products, I have an association between the product and the support provider. I'm open to either aggregating them together or to treat the ILS / Vendor pairs separately. I've already had one inquiry suggesting that they not be aggregated.
Well, the current situation seems absurd, with only 15 of the Koha support providers listed and one of those listed under three names, while some Koha survey responses are discarded because there aren't enough libraries for a name. I think all Koha official community releases should be listed together, with support providers listed separately, just as I think you currently record LMS version number separately. If people are running some Koha-based PTFS/LibLime system or some bleeding-edge prerelease/maybe-never-to-be-a-release Koha, then that probably should be listed separately. Would other list subscribers be OK with that?
How common is it that a library will sign with multiple support vendors for Koha support? I'm not aware that this is a common arrangement at all.
At least among the co-op's libraries, it's not that rare. I think this is more common with a web-based catalogue, where we can co-operate with existing library IT support providers rather than replace them. Of course, I'd prefer it that everyone bought internet connections and hardware from our partners, but some libraries have contracts they won't break and I feel it's not ethical to duplicate them unnecessarily. How would you be aware of it? It doesn't seem possible for library to register this multi-provider situation accurately on lib-web-cats. I'm sure I've mentioned at least one library where the co-op is providing services but isn't credited as such.
Is there an Independent option for RFID?
-This survey does not address RFID products. [...]
Sorry, my mistake in interpreting announcements that I read. Of course, I had not seen the survey.
Are the anonymised responses available under Creative Commons BY, ODbL or other broadly FOSS terms?
-No. I publish the statistics as openly as I can, including the redacted comments. I reveal the totals of all numeric responses. It would be a great deal of work to sanitize the data in a way that would ensure the privacy of respondents.
Anonymisation is a common step in social statistics. I think when I was involved in a research project some years ago, it was a case of adding a random number field to the user record, then hashing it with some other data and making sure the identifying fields were not output. Is it really much work? It's a great deal of work to promote the survey and for all these librarians to fill it out, but they do it. It's a shame that no-one can help with the analysis and the data is essentially lost from the community with only summary statistics available. It seems such a missed opportunity.
Can someone help me get a reply from Marshall Breeding? ;-)
-Yes. I responded. Just like I did last year to your concerns.
Sorry, I clarify "reply to direct emails". This annual exchange seems to be the main way I get any reaction to comments about lib-web-cats! I don't think it's ideal to ask vendor-specific questions on-list, but I will if needs be.
-I do hope that all libraries running Koha will respond to the survey. Many libraries are considering moving to open source ILS products and they deserve to benefit from the knowledge of the libraries that have already implemented Koha.
I think it's up to them whether they want to work on lib-web-cats. If Koha-using libraries want others to benefit from their knowledge, they're better off contributing to wiki.koha-community.org or other free and open shareable community resources. Hope that clarifies, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. Past Koha Release Manager (2.0), LMS programmer, statistician, webmaster. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire for Koha work http://www.software.coop/products/koha
On 11 December 2010 05:33, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Breeding, Marshall wrote:
-With Koha, unlike the other ILS products, I have an association between the product and the support provider. I'm open to either aggregating them together or to treat the ILS / Vendor pairs separately. I've already had one inquiry suggesting that they not be aggregated.
Well, the current situation seems absurd, with only 15 of the Koha support providers listed and one of those listed under three names, while some Koha survey responses are discarded because there aren't enough libraries for a name.
I think all Koha official community releases should be listed together, with support providers listed separately, just as I think you currently record LMS version number separately.
I agree.
If people are running some Koha-based PTFS/LibLime system or some bleeding-edge prerelease/maybe-never-to-be-a-release Koha, then that probably should be listed separately.
Would other list subscribers be OK with that?
I certainly would, grouping libraries running actual Koha (its quite easy to tell they will be running a version that is an official release) and those running some variant of Koha in another group.
How common is it that a library will sign with multiple support vendors for Koha support? I'm not aware that this is a common arrangement at all.
At least among the co-op's libraries, it's not that rare.
I think this is more common with a web-based catalogue, where we can co-operate with existing library IT support providers rather than replace them. Of course, I'd prefer it that everyone bought internet connections and hardware from our partners, but some libraries have contracts they won't break and I feel it's not ethical to duplicate them unnecessarily.
How would you be aware of it? It doesn't seem possible for library to register this multi-provider situation accurately on lib-web-cats. I'm sure I've mentioned at least one library where the co-op is providing services but isn't credited as such.
Yes, we certainly do it too, HLT for example gets support from Catalyst and Katipo. There are other of our clients that have similar arrangements. It is quite common with free software. Chris
I wonder if Marshall gives any other group of folks this much input into his survey :) With that being said, I think with the way the library software market is going it would make sense to add a vendor field separate from the "Current Automation System" field. (since the survey includes questions about the software you use and the vendor that supports it) It could even have a lovely asterisk that leads you to a footnote similar to this: "If your library uses more than one support vendor, please list what you consider to be your main support vendor. If you do not contract with a support vendor please list 'Independent'." Then those people listed as "Independent" could go in and rate their in-house support team with the highest marks and go buy them cookies, or donuts, or pavlova, or whatever ... Josh Westbrook Prescott Library Mngr/District Technology Mngr Walla Walla County Rural Library District joshw@wwrurallibrary.com http://www.wwrurallibrary.com On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Chris Cormack <chris@bigballofwax.co.nz>wrote:
On 11 December 2010 05:33, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
Breeding, Marshall wrote:
-With Koha, unlike the other ILS products, I have an association between the product and the support provider. I'm open to either aggregating them together or to treat the ILS / Vendor pairs separately. I've already had one inquiry suggesting that they not be aggregated.
Well, the current situation seems absurd, with only 15 of the Koha support providers listed and one of those listed under three names, while some Koha survey responses are discarded because there aren't enough libraries for a name.
I think all Koha official community releases should be listed together, with support providers listed separately, just as I think you currently record LMS version number separately.
I agree.
If people are running some Koha-based PTFS/LibLime system or some bleeding-edge prerelease/maybe-never-to-be-a-release Koha, then that probably should be listed separately.
Would other list subscribers be OK with that?
I certainly would, grouping libraries running actual Koha (its quite easy to tell they will be running a version that is an official release) and those running some variant of Koha in another group.
How common is it that a library will sign with multiple support vendors for Koha support? I'm not aware that this is a common arrangement at all.
At least among the co-op's libraries, it's not that rare.
I think this is more common with a web-based catalogue, where we can co-operate with existing library IT support providers rather than replace them. Of course, I'd prefer it that everyone bought internet connections and hardware from our partners, but some libraries have contracts they won't break and I feel it's not ethical to duplicate them unnecessarily.
How would you be aware of it? It doesn't seem possible for library to register this multi-provider situation accurately on lib-web-cats. I'm sure I've mentioned at least one library where the co-op is providing services but isn't credited as such.
Yes, we certainly do it too, HLT for example gets support from Catalyst and Katipo. There are other of our clients that have similar arrangements. It is quite common with free software.
Chris _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
2010/12/11 Josh Westbrook <joshw@wwrurallibrary.com>:
I wonder if Marshall gives any other group of folks this much input into his survey :)
I'm sure he does, after all that's how things improve. The worlds a changing place, and some of the rules that apply to proprietary systems don't make sense with free and open source ones, it does no harm to point that out.
With that being said, I think with the way the library software market is going it would make sense to add a vendor field separate from the "Current Automation System" field. (since the survey includes questions about the software you use and the vendor that supports it) It could even have a lovely asterisk that leads you to a footnote similar to this:
"If your library uses more than one support vendor, please list what you consider to be your main support vendor. If you do not contract with a support vendor please list 'Independent'."
What if you have 2 main .... why not just let the person list them all, and rank them all?
Then those people listed as "Independent" could go in and rate their in-house support team with the highest marks and go buy them cookies, or donuts, or pavlova, or whatever ...
Off topic http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/4418676/New-Zealand-wins-pavlova... Chris
I agree with you, Chris. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Josh Westbrook Prescott Library Mngr/District Technology Mngr Walla Walla County Rural Library District joshw@wwrurallibrary.com http://www.wwrurallibrary.com On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Chris Cormack <chris@bigballofwax.co.nz>wrote:
2010/12/11 Josh Westbrook <joshw@wwrurallibrary.com>:
I wonder if Marshall gives any other group of folks this much input into his survey :)
I'm sure he does, after all that's how things improve. The worlds a changing place, and some of the rules that apply to proprietary systems don't make sense with free and open source ones, it does no harm to point that out.
With that being said, I think with the way the library software market is going it would make sense to add a vendor field separate from the
"Current
Automation System" field. (since the survey includes questions about the software you use and the vendor that supports it) It could even have a lovely asterisk that leads you to a footnote similar to this:
"If your library uses more than one support vendor, please list what you consider to be your main support vendor. If you do not contract with a support vendor please list 'Independent'."
What if you have 2 main .... why not just let the person list them all, and rank them all?
Then those people listed as "Independent" could go in and rate their in-house support team with the highest marks and go buy them cookies, or donuts, or pavlova, or whatever ...
Off topic
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/4418676/New-Zealand-wins-pavlova...
Chris
participants (8)
-
Breeding, Marshall -
Chris Cormack -
Ian Walls -
Josh Westbrook -
Lori Bowen Ayre -
MJ Ray -
Nicole Engard -
Paul Poulain