[Koha] Fwd: [Web4lib] Request to participate in 2010 Library Technology Guides automation survey

[MJ Ray]

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