Like Mike, I plan to stay out of the primary service provider discussion unless asked for my opinion. However, I would like to echo what he says about 3rd party vendors. I recognize what a burden it would be for the community to vet and maintain a page that highlights vendors that are known not only have products that work well with Evergreen but are good partners/contributors for the open source community. This is something I would be happy to maintain. Equinox has the ability to provide VMs for the 3rd party providers to prove their compliance against and I would happily solicit references from the community on vendors who are doing it right. I think there's a reason to have both an Evergreen service providers page as well as a 3rd party vendor page.
Grace On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Mike Rylander <mrylan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > 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? > -- Grace Dunbar, Vice President Equinox Software, Inc. - The Open Source Experts gdun...@esilibrary.com 1-877-OPEN-ILS www.esilibrary.com