[Koha] Registering as a support provider at koha-community.org

[MJ Ray]

Reed Wade wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:18 AM, MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > Can we add a solidarity clause?  Do we want to list support providers
> 
> There was a bit of discussion on this point in the IRC mtg. The
> consensus resolved to something like "it's difficult and distracting
> to make and maintain and enforce a reliable test of goodness so
> instead just keep it clean and simple"

I didn't find it on http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2010-05-04
and I don't understand the reasons for that consensus.  Sorting this out
correctly once seems much less distracting than leaving it fuzzy and
having the sort of problems we had under LibLime's rule, while my
proposed solidarity clause seems pretty clean and simple to me.

> plus "oh, and maybe we'll also add a Cool Vendors Do This check list
> to appear on the directly page as well"

Would librarians involved in purchasing like to comment on how many
they think would actually use such a checklist as part of choosing a
support provider?  If it'd work, great, but I have my doubts that it
is compatible with Best Value and similar purchasing rules, so it is
better for the community to limit listing to those in good standing.

> the energy would be better spent updating docs or making patches or
> watching tv or something

No, not really.  This is a bang per buck thing: we should invest this
bit of energy to free up a lot of vendor energy for the community.

If our community directs paid work towards vendors who are working
against it, then those who play nice will not achieve their potential
and the community will benefit less than it could.  We're effectively
working against ourselves if we help those who work against us.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)  Webmaster and LMS developer at     | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk        |  .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html |  .... op