Koha like most successful FOSS projects, work on a "honour" system where
everyone is expected to do the right thing. We do have a "code-of-conduct"
but that is mostly about diversity and other issues.
Further, everyone who maintains the website do so as volunteers. Expecting
them to start acting as police is probably not the best of ideas. I know
for a fact that Liz stopped volunteering on the PAID provider section
maintenance as she was sick of dealing with it.
The "X" no. of patch criteria does not solve anything IMHO for several
reasons. Patches are not linear entities. Often they get to be completed
only with active contribution of others. Most often, the patches are
credited to individuals and not the companies they represent. So what
happens when an employee dev leave and say joins another Koha service
provider? Who will get the credits? It may sound easy, but its not so
legally. Then how does a patch say one that permanently addresses the
auto-increment issue compare against 5 trivial string patch?
Basically, do we become bureaucrats OR do we write Koha?
Just my 2c
On Aug 10, 2017 3:45 PM, "vinod mishra" <mishrav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we can make a parameter like the company who have submitted at
> least five patch/new code for major active release oldoldstable, oldstable
> and stable will be only listed. For example if a company has five
> code/patch in 16.5 than he may be listed continuously up-to 17.5 once 17.11
> will release and there is no contribution in 16.11 than they may be delist.
> Above is only one parameter but someone have to monitor this continuously
> to update the list, however range of version can be increased, by doing so
> they will be encouraged to contribute continuously if they do not want to
> die from list.
> With Regards,
> Vinod Kumar Mishra,
> Assistant Librarian,
> Biju Patnaik Central Library (BPCL),
> NIT Rourkela,
> Website: http://mishravk.com/
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4666-7874
> *"Spiritual relationship is far more precious than physical. Physical
> relationship divorced from spiritual is body without soul" -- Mahatma
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Mark Tompsett <mtomp...@hotmail.com>
> > Greetings,
> > Nathan A. Curulla suggested:
> > > Maybe we should change the listing to “contributing support companies”
> > > something like that.
> > While I think that is a good idea, and then companies without community
> > participation get removed, the problem still remains: people don't read.
> > We've put a nice disclaimer that this is not an official list and has no
> > official seal of approval meaning to the list, and yet people still use
> > that way. It is impossible to educate people who refuse to read, even
> > though
> > the preamble write up is a rather good explanation of how to look for a
> > Koha
> > support provider. As such, the only reasonable course of action is to
> > delete
> > the list, otherwise it will continue to be used that way, no matter what
> > put on the page(s).
> > Owen Leonard wrote:
> > > It would be a duplicate listing ... and should be rejected.
> > Who determines it is a duplicate listing? Because last time I looked some
> > other entries looked like duplicates to me, much like OpenLX/BBB. And
> > cleaning up duplicates is a pain. Yet another reason to just delete the
> > list
> > already.
> > GPML,
> > Mark Tompsett
> > _______________________________________________
> > Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
> > Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz
> > https://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
> Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org
Koha mailing list http://koha-community.org