Thanks for the feedback Brad and thanks to Chris for his comments!
I have to say Chris' comments gave me a moment of pause to rethink the
proposal.
In thinking back to the time before we implemented the new vendor
listing procedures, the community had a vendor page that included 1)
several vendors providing Evergreen services 2) some outdated listings
for vendors that were no longer offering Evergreen services and 3) a few
vendors who, from all appearances, had never been in the Evergreen
business. Even with the new policy, we will always have a problem where
we might have outdated listings until somebody notices that the vendor
is no longer providing Evergreen services. However, I do think the new
policy has been great for removing those vendors who really didn't work
with Evergreen. I suppose we could have removed them without the policy,
but it's always helpful to have a written policy to point to if somebody
questions a removal.
Looking at today's vendor page, the listing is smaller, but I can say
that each and every one of those vendors does indeed provide some
services related to Evergreen. Overall, I think the page provides much
more useful information than it did before the policy was implemented
because Evergreen users no longer need to go through the process of
contacting vendors listed on the page (as I did when I was starting out)
just to find out that they really don't do Evergreen.
Yes, I think the link to Evergreen services is also another step that
might make the page more useful to Evergreen users. However, I'm now
reconsidering whether this means we should make it a requirement.
Since Brad was the vendor who responded to my query, I'm going to use
ESI's page as an example. As Brad mentioned, they don't really have a
page that outlines their Evergreen services. It's very easy for a user
to find out what their services are by looking at their "What We Do"
menu, and, since Evergreen is listed in their "Communities and Software"
menu, it's not difficult to see that those services are provided for
Evergreen. This is the way the company chose to present their services
on their web site.
However, in order to comply with the proposed requirement, they will now
need to create a new page. Brad kindly said he would have no problem
creating this page, but should ESI really be put in a position where
they are required to make this change so that they can remain on the
vendor list? Let's say it's not ESI, but it's another vendor with a
similar Information Architecture on their web site. In this case, the
vendor isn't as agreeable to adding a new page to identify their
Evergreen services. Maybe the vendor is a one-person operation, and that
person is just incredibly busy and can't get to the web site change for
a few months. Is it right to keep this hypothetical vendor off the
Evergreen vendor listing just because he/she doesn't have an Evergreen
services page?
Admittedly, I was one of the first people to say "required" when the EOB
had the required vs. suggested discussion, but, at this time, I'm
leaning towards not requiring. Many thanks to Chris for sharing his
thoughts and making me look at the question in another light.
Kathy
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 343-0128
[email protected]
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
#evergreen IRC: kmlussier
On 9/8/2014 9:23 PM, W. Brad LaJeunesse wrote:
Speaking as one of the vendors, I don't see a link back requirement as
a burden, but rather it seems a simple reciprocal gesture. It seems
totally reasonable to me. It's not like you're asking us to cut down
the largest tree in the forest with a herring. [1]
I couldn't remember, so I just took a look at our website, and while
we don't have a link back from any of our "services" pages, we do have
a link back from our dedicated Evergreen page. We support multiple
open source products, and our services are at least very similar
across all of them, so we created a page for each open source
community (that don't mention our services, actually) and link back to
each community website from there.
So, there are some changes required on our website in order to fully
comply with this proposal (as I read it, at least), but we're fine
with that.
Thanks for asking for input.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DopGxUAoAY
--
W. Brad LaJeunesse
| President
| Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
| phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
| web: http://www.esilibrary.com <http://www.esilibrary.com/>
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Kathy Lussier <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi all,
This has been a great discussion so far!
In addition to hearing from the general user community, I'm also
interested in hearing from the vendors who are part of our
community. Please let us know what you think because I think we
ultimately want to strike a balance between providing useful
information to our users while also not imposing an undue burden
on our vendor community.
Thanks!
Kathy
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 343-0128 <tel:%28508%29%20343-0128>
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Twitter:http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
#evergreen IRC: kmlussier
On 9/8/2014 1:28 PM, Rogan Hamby wrote:
No, I thank you for bringing up those points and I think you're
right we do seem to have a slightly differently view of the
intent and so these discussions are good to have. I hope we will
hear from more folks!
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Sharp, Chris
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Thanks again, Rogan, for the continued discussion on this.
I'm glad we're able to air our respective opinions.
> There was some discussion during the meeting about it being
suggested
> versus required. To me those elements that make it more user
> friendly should be required or we start diluting the purpose.
Ah, here is where I think we're disagreeing. From my
perspective, the purpose of the vendor page is to provide a
simple directory that gives our project's end users pointers
toward potential vendors for support. What happens after the
user sees these listings is beyond the scope of that purpose,
as I see things. I think our responsibility from the
Evergreen community side ends at making sure to the best of
our ability that the listings *on the page itself* are
up-to-date and accurate. I see a clear dividing line between
that responsibility and the responsibility of the vendors to
keep their web pages up to date. I'm not generally for
laissez faire policies, but in this case, it seems that
vendors will do what's best to communicate their services to
users without us needing to add requirements to do so.
Having said that, I'm satisfied that I've been heard and I'll
be quiet now and let community consensus decide whether or
not this requirement becomes part of our vendor listing policy.
Thanks for hearing me out,
Chris
--
Chris Sharp
PINES System Administrator
Georgia Public Library Service
1800 Century Place, Suite 150
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
(404) 235-7147 <tel:%28404%29%20235-7147>
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://pines.georgialibraries.org/
--
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>
