I'm more in favor of high lighting active and proven community members than vetting some and searching for any kind of misrepresentation.
I think there is a big difference in the models in terms of labor for the web team and how it frames their relationship to the community. On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Mike Rylander <mrylan...@gmail.com> wrote: > While I am personally an active community member, I'm also an employee > of a service provider, so unless I see something that seems > particularly antagonistic toward service providers I'll stay out of > most of this discussion except to say this: in my opinion, the purpose > of the page is not well served if there is not at least some > demonstration of competency for the specific services or products > offered by a vendor or service provider. I don't know what sort of > vetting should take place, and I realize that there is a burden > involved to fearless our volunteers, but I'm of the opinion that a > blanket "caveat emptor" is enough to help those looking for Evergreen > services if there are, in fact, inaccurate offerings listed. I wish I > had a solution, or even a suggestion, but I'm not sure I'm the one to > be offering such in this particular case. That said, if others feel > my input would be valuable I'm happy to speak publicly or privately > about possible solutions to any real or perceived problems. > > However, on a more positive note, I'd like to address Kathy's question > about third-party services and vendors. I believe that the "vendor > page" could be used to good effect to reward (or, perhaps, highlight) > those third party vendors that are active contributors to the project. > Those that sponsor or implement specific, measurable feature > improvements in Evergreen don't fall into the "support vendor" > category, but go beyond "our stuff works with Evergreen because we > followed standard X." Vendors of that type don't currently have much > representation or exposure, but they are important. I'll give a > couple examples (of which there are quite a few more, actually) to > help clarify: > > * EBSCO sent a developer to the 2012 hackfest with the expressed > purpose of implementing NoveList Select functionality in Evergreen, > and they wanted to do that so they could make sure Evergreen will > continue to be able to integrate their content. (They partially > sponsored the event, too, but that's a different thing.) > * PV-SUPA sponsored development to integrate their RFID hardware with > the Evergreen staff client, and enthusiastically agreed to have it > developed in such a way as to allow other 3rd party products to > integrate in a similar way by paying to have a plugin framework built, > instead of pushing for a special-case integration just for them. > > Recognizing 3rd party contributors of this sort, along side direct > service providers, would provide incentive for future and broader > collaboration and contribution, and highlight those external products > and services that have both (actual) external and community backing. > > Thoughts? > > --miker > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Kathy Lussier <kluss...@masslnc.org> > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > At the June Oversight Board meeting (minutes available at > > > http://evergreen-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=governance:minutes:2013-6-20 > ), > > I raised the question of whether the Evergreen community should develop a > > policy regarding the paid support vendors that are listed on the > Evergreen > > web site at > > http://evergreen-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:evergreen_companies. > > > > I don't think the community should be in a position of endorsing any > > Evergreen provider. However, I think it's important that the companies on > > the list do indeed provide Evergreen services so that users don't waste a > > lot of time investigating companies that don't really work with > Evergreen. > > There was a consensus at the Board meeting that a policy should be > > considered. > > > > I would like to get feedback from others in the community on the > guidelines > > you think should be used for this page. As an example, Koha asks support > > providers to follow the procedures outlined at > > http://koha-community.org/support/paid-support/how-to-get-listed/. The > Koha > > community asks support providers to send an e-mail to the general list > with > > contact information and a description of services provided. The providers > > must also show their support for the community by adding a visible link > to > > the Koha web site. > > > > I think the Koha guidelines might offer a good starting point for the > > Evergreen community. > > > > During the meeting, there was discussion about whether we should define > what > > an Evergreen service is. Migration, hosting, support, development, > training, > > and implementation seem like obvious Evergreen services. Should > peripheral > > devices or third-party services that work with Evergreen be included or > are > > they a different animal? > > > > Does everyone like the Koha model of requiring listed vendors to add a > > visible link to the project web site? > > > > Does anyone have any other thoughts on the subject? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Kathy > > > > > > -- > > Kathy Lussier > > Project Coordinator > > Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative > > (508) 343-0128 > > kluss...@masslnc.org > > Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier > > > > -- > Mike Rylander > | Director of Research and Development > | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source > | phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) > | email: mi...@esilibrary.com > | web: http://www.esilibrary.com > -- Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services, York County Library System "You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me." -- C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis>