[Koha] [Koha-translate] [Koha-devel] Announcing ... New koha.org Website based on Plone

[Chris Cormack]

2009/5/9 Joshua Ferraro <jmf at liblime.com>:

>>
>>
>> 3.2 PAY FOR SUPPORT
>>
>> Support companies are listed by the date they joined the Koha community.
>>
>> I really don't want to remove any credits to LibLime or BibLibre.  You
>> guys are doing awesome job.  However, I'm a bit confused about the
>> contribution part.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, a contribution should be something that the company
>> as paid or provide the ressource to do something.  Features developped for
>> and paid by a client shouldn't be considered as a contribution.
>>
>> Has contributed over 55% of the entire Koha codebase, including the
>> integration of Koha and Zebra
>> Has contributed over 35% of the entire Koha codebase
>> Was the developpment payed by a client?  If so, the client should be
>> credited for the integrations/development, not LibLime... does it make
>> sense?
>
> Well, I can't speak for BibLibre, but LibLime does not get paid by clients
> to contribute back to the Koha community. We don't get paid to maintain
> those contributions. We don't get paid by clients to write and maintain the
> free documentation we've maintained for the community, and we don't get paid
> by clients to hold time-consuming official Koha positions such as Release
> Manager, Translation Manager and Documentation Manager. LibLime pays those
> expenses ourselves at considerable cost to us.
>
> Many of the Koha vendors listed on the support page do not contribute 100%
> of the code they write for customers to the community, and we've learned
> over the past fwew years that in some cases this is due to them not being
> paid for that effort, and in other cases, its a deliberate attempt to
> proprietize components of the services they offer.
>
> LibLime has, from our inception in 2005, contributed back 100% of the code
> we've created because we believe in the community process and we strive to
> set an example for other support organizations.
>
> Listing notable contributions by vendors on the support page where
> applicable is additional incentive for vendors to get more actively involved
> in contribution. Its important that libraries selecting support options know
> the roles that their support provider is playing in the community.

I'm not going to answer this until I have calmed down enough to not go
into flame mode.
I do find it highly insulting to the rest of the community who are not
liblime though.
>
>>
>>
>> In March 2007, LibLime acquired the Koha division of Katipo
>> Communications, Ltd., the original developers of Koha 1.0.
>> Not really a contribution...  This is marketing stuff and shoud stay on
>> LibLime website.
>
> That is not meant to be a marketing statement, but rather an explanation of
> LibLime's listing having been grandfathered from Katipo's Koha Division,
> which could be confusing to first-time visitors.
>

Maybe then in that case in order to no confuse first time visitors you
need to put that the three people hired in that grandfathering have
all since left liblime.

>>
>> the koha-manage group decided to...
>>
>> What are the factor making for someone to be in the Koha-manage group?
>> There is no mention of such a group on koha.org.
>>
>> My main point here is that the Koha.org website should be as
>> vendor-independant as possible.  I really think that the Alphabetical order
>> is the best way to reach that goal.
>
> I respectfully disagree. Listing by date joined is the most
> vendor-independent and community-focused. Another fair option would be to
> list in order of contributions, most to least. This community is, after all,
> a meritocracy :).
>
The community is what the community decides it should be.

Chris