Hi all,
I was following the discussion from the DIG hack-a-way today, but didn't
have time to chime in.
+1 to Jason's comments. I think we have some disagreement on the
proposed addition to the policy, but, overall, my sense is that the
community is fairly happy with how the original policy has been
implemented and with the way we handle the Evergreen listing.
Here's part of my confusion, we already say that vendors listed are
supposed to have an Evergreen offering page. This is copy and pasted
from the "Getting Listed on the Evergreen Paid Support Services Page"
on the WIKI:
"Show support for the Evergreen community by adding a visible link on
their Evergreen offering page to the Evergreen community web site at"
How is a link back to that page a big deal?
I was surprised to see that we were already requiring an Evergreen
offering page, which is a bit embarrassing since I was the person who
pulled together that original policy. I suspect this is an accident of
language that was used in making the link-back requirement. It is taken
almost verbatim from the Koha policy, and I also may have been making a
false assumption that all vendors would already have this page. A review
of the original discussion confirms this suspicion as they was a lot of
discussion regarding support for a link-back requirement, but no mention
of a requirement for an Evergreen services page. Mea culpa.
I can also say that requirement is a piece of the policy that has not
been enforced as there are existing vendors on the page that do not have
an Evergreen offerings page. The only check I have made when adding
vendors is that they comply with the link-back requirement.
Nevertheless, the language is there, and if we decide to enforce it,
then I guess we will need to contact any vendors who don't comply to ask
that they create this page. At this time, I'm still a little hesitant to
make that requirement.
Have a nice weekend everyone!
Kathy
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 343-0128
[email protected]
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
#evergreen IRC: kmlussier
On 9/12/2014 3:33 PM, Sharp, Chris wrote:
For the record,
+1
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Etheridge" <[email protected]>
To: "Evergreen Discussion Group" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 2:08:38 PM
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Proposed change in Vendor Listing Policy
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich
<[email protected]> wrote:
Vendors, we would appreciate if you could show your support for the
Evergreen community by linking back to our web site at
http://www.evergreen-ils.org/.
Speaking as an individual, I would prefer that we keep this a
requirement. It's more than a fair "trade" for being listed on our
community website. IMO, it's a show of solidarity with the Evergreen
community and a hedge against those who might want to fork the
software or keep changes to themselves in this new software as a
service world. If you're going to use Evergreen to "compete", then
do
so on a level playing field. Let others know what software you're
using and what that really means (that there is choice). In other
words, compete on merit, not obfuscation. It benefits everyone.
--
Jason Etheridge
| Support Manager
| Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts
| phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: [email protected]
| web: http://www.esilibrary.com
