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

[Lee Phillips]

Friends and co conspirators,
I like the chronology idea personally, when we migrated we looked for folks 
out there that had a depth of experience.
Also if I sponsor code development I would like credit whether ByWater or 
Liblime does the work. A "sponsored by" is sufficient.
Obviously Koha and support companies are on the right track because there 
has been an explosion of interest. (poor Sirsi).
I think we are not focusing on the real issues that will next be on my 
agenda and that is what is up with OCLC, Worldcat Local and Quick Start.
Koha will outlast OCLC morphing as long as there is some interoperability, 
but all the folks out there- ready to manage libraries ILSs and CMSs.... 
ummm I am not buying any stock in their start ups.
There needs to be a Koha strategy for development and growth that everyone 
can reference. The tactics to be successful must support the strategy.
We ALL need to look ahead and plan for the future of this amazing 
collaborative community.
Okay the library is closing and I am off for the weekend! WOOHOO.
Keep the baby and the bath water!
Cheers
Lee in Butte Montana!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Cormack" <chris at bigballofwax.co.nz>
To: "Joshua Ferraro" <jmf at liblime.com>
Cc: <koha-announce at lists.koha.org>; <koha-translate at lists.koha.org>; 
<kohadevel at agogme.com>; <koha at lists.katipo.co.nz>; 
<koha-devel at lists.koha.org>
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [Koha] [Koha-translate] [Koha-devel] Announcing ... Newkoha.org 
Website based on Plone


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