I agree w/ Rogan. While there may be some vendors that are better/worse than others, the impetus of vetting their qualifications should fall to anyone contracting with them anyway. It seems like a duplication of effort to have an extensive vetting process in the beginning (I mean, there should be SOME criteria) when there has to be extensive vetting down by a contracting agency anyway.
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Rogan Hamby <rogan.ha...@yclibrary.net>wrote: > 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> > -- Ruth Frasur Director of the Historic(ally Awesome) Hagerstown - Jefferson Township Library 10 W. College Street in Hagerstown, Indiana (47346) p (765) 489-5632; f (765) 489-5808 Our Kickin' Website <http://hagerstownlibrary.org> Our Rockin' Facebook Page <http://facebook.com/hjtplibrary> and Stuff I'm Reading<http://pinterest.com/hjtplibrary/ruth-reads/>