> organizations to express their dis/satisfaction with
> > >> > > > various enterprises or simply observe strengths and
> > >> > > > weaknesses.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-Original Message-
> > > >
gths and weaknesses.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From:
>>> open-ils-general-bounces@list.**georgialibraries.org[mailto:
>>> open-ils-general-**bounces@list.georgialibraries.**org]
>>> On Behalf Of Mike Rylander
>>>
up
Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen web page for paid support vendors
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Kathy Lussier wrote:
Hi all,
[snip]
Defining Evergreen services: I'm open to not defining what an
Evergreen service is and to see how it goes. My personal preference is
that Ever
l Message-
> From: open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org
> [mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Mike
> Rylander
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:36 PM
> To: Evergreen Discussion Group
> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen we
t: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen web page for paid support vendors
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Kathy Lussier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
[snip]
>
> Defining Evergreen services: I'm open to not defining what an
> Evergreen service is and to see how it goes. My personal prefer
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Kathy Lussier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
[snip]
>
> Defining Evergreen services: I'm open to not defining what an Evergreen
> service is and to see how it goes. My personal preference is that Evergreen
> support providers not be confused with third-party services that in
Hi Joshua,
Sorry, I'm going to wander a little off topic for a bit, but given the
recent concerns our libraries have had with Evergreen performance, this
comment jumped out at me:
CMD for example is not 100% competent in Evergreen as a whole because
the code base is huge. However, we are v
Hi all,
Great discussion so far! I just wanted to respond to a few
points/questions that were raised.
I would be interested if a specific incident brought this issue to the
forefront or if this is just a general concern. (i.e., are we pre-emptively
solving a problem that hasn't happened, o
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 on
On 07/10/2013 10:45 AM, Mike Rylander 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 o
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
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
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 serve
open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org
[mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Kathy
Lussier
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 5:29 PM
To: Evergreen General Discussion List
Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen web page for paid support vendors
Hi all,
At the
a-style method of dealing with this issue, I have no objections at all.
Chris
- Original Message -
> From: "Kathy Lussier"
> To: "Evergreen General Discussion List"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2013 5:28:44 PM
> Subject: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen web
I have concerns about the additional issues beyond the two I originally
voted for. I'm not writing this at this moment as a lengthy -1 to the
additional ones but I want to think about them more and urge other people
to as well.
Some context:
The web team is not very robust and it's role in the c
I agree:
Vendors sending an email describing their services +1
Requiring that they add a visible link to the project web site +1
Annual re-registration +1
Confirmation of references. Are they satisfied customers? +1
-
Rev. James R Shaw
Vice President of Administration
I am definitely in favor of Rogans +1s as we have had experience of vendors
promising working with Evergreen and in fact not wholly producing the goods.
Excuse my brevity
Sent from my iPad
Stuart Forrest
Library Systems Specialist
Beaufort County Library
On Jul 9, 2013, at 18:35, "Lori Ayre"
m
I'm a +1 on the same ones Rogan is. And, offer these thoughts to consider:
Ask for one reference from the Evergreen community? Not to include on website
but to verify they are actually providing services (versus intending to, which
is the case with some now listed there).
Also may want to con
Vendors sending an email describing their services +1
Requiring that they add a visible link to the project web site +1
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Kathy Lussier wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At the June Oversight Board meeting (minutes available at
> http://evergreen-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=
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 w
21 matches
Mail list logo
