2009/5/8 Chris Cormack <ch...@bigballofwax.co.nz> > 2009/5/9 Joshua Ferraro <j...@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.
Certainly not my intent to insult anyone, nor to start a flame war, appologies if I've done so. I think LibLime's record speaks for itself on this matter, we've given everything we have to this community. > > > > >> > >> > >> 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. Please don't re-write history. > > > >> > >> 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. I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Chris, could you explain? Do you mean to imply that the Koha community is not a meritocracy? Koha, like the Apache community has always represented 'Meritocracy in Action!' from my POV. Cheers, Josh -- Joshua Ferraro SUPPORT FOR OPEN-SOURCE SOFTWARE CEO migration, training, maintenance, support LibLime Featuring Koha Open-Source ILS j...@liblime.com |Full Demos at http://liblime.com/koha |1(888)KohaILS
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha.org http://lists.koha.org/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
