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. > >> >> >> 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. >> >> 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. Chris _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha.org http://lists.koha.org/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
