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

[Josh Westbrook]

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 at wwrurallibrary.com
http://www.wwrurallibrary.com


On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Chris Cormack <chris at bigballofwax.co.nz>wrote:

> On 11 December 2010 05:33, MJ Ray <mjr at 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 at lists.katipo.co.nz
> http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.katipo.co.nz/pipermail/koha/attachments/20101210/8b44375a/attachment.htm