[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Evergreen web page for paid support vendors

[Lazar, Alexey Vladimirovich]

Hello.

I think that any official Evergreen community vendor listing page should be treated purely as a directory page and not anything else, with all applicable disclaimers clearly spelled out. I think that services providers who want to get listed should be required to have some level of description or at least mention Evergreen on their website. Koha's "How to get listed" page seems to be well though out.

 Aleksey

On 2013-07-17, at 12:32 , June Caola-Stokoe <jstokoe at cwmars.org> wrote:

> This IS a great discussion. My thoughts veer in the direction of Open Source philosophy and how such a directory helps/hinders its' advocacy. In the interest of efficiency, it seems to make sense to have a place for organizations to express their dis/satisfaction with various enterprises or simply observe strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-ils-general-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:open-ils-general-bounces at 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 web page for paid support vendors
> 
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Kathy Lussier <klussier at masslnc.org> 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 integrate with Evergreen, even if that third-party 
>> vendor needed to learn a lot of the code to get their service to work 
>> with Evergreen. Using Rogan's example, I don't think people come to 
>> this page looking for blue tooth scanners, so those vendors shouldn't be listed on this page.
>> 
> 
> Just to clarify, Iwas specifically /not/ talking about the bluetooth scanner-type example, about which I agree 100%.  If the consensus is that actively involved 3rd party vendors should be separated from direct Evergreen service providers, that's fine, but I just want to be clear about the sort of provider I was referring to.
> 
> Were I looking at Random OSS Project X's web site, I'd prefer to have one "folks I can pay (after vetting) to get stuff done" page, which seems to be how ours is used.  I'd include 3rd party products from vendors with "skin in the game" in that set.
> 
> --
> 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:  miker at esilibrary.com  | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com

Aleksey Lazar
IS Developer and Integrator - PALS
http://www.mnpals.org/