Hughes M.J. wrote:
> Sorry, but got to jump in here,
No need to apologise... I love having more expert input on this.
All these acronymic organisations still confuse me a bit, as is
hopefully clear by now.
> Mj, I admire where you are coming from in your stance, but feel you
> may have to soften the approach in terms of the practicality of the
> current arrangement, and the realities of the wider environment in
> which most of us operate if you wish to engage the 'mainstream' of
> libraries.. and there those of us in there that also have a positive
> approach to FOSS applications in libraries. [...]
Amen. Please remember that I was asked to explain our "reluctance to
join BIC", so I didn't include most of the reasons to join. I don't
really expect the Microsoft and Adobe worries to be shared widely on
this list, but co-op members don't like paying for our competitors'
marketing and that's a simple fact. I think that not seeing the ROI
from BIC membership is a far more weighty concern.
Another aspect is that the co-op is essentially aiming to change the
world, which doesn't always help with accepting the current state of
the market - I know there's a sort of creative tension in that.
> For the (last I checked) very reasonable associate fee that joining
> BIC incurs, you do get at least a platform [...]
Great, that's news to me. When we last considered this, I was advised
we should join as a supplier at GBP 565+ which was even more than
membership of our national sector body, Cooperatives-UK, who give us a
wide range of financial, legal, marketing and democratic services.
When that 565 was combined with London travel and so on, membership
costs would probably affect our prices. 70 would be much easier to
sell to members and clients. I'll go check.
> I think you'd have quite a bit to bring to the discussion on
> integration, and a FOSS standpoint (certainly in relation to the LMS
> side) is under-represented in BIC, but its up to you to weigh the
> arguments here
Sure. Thanks for the extra arguments and information in favour,
which I'll pass on to members and associates. Hopefully this
discussion sheds some light why FOSS is under-represented in BIC.
> This is not intended as a flame or criticism, but I'd like to see us
> all put the discussion of the discussion forum to bed so the (to my
> mind) important work of addressing integration issues can get back
> to the forefront.
I'd love to, too. Open and voluntary membership is the first
principle of the cooperative movement, so hopefully you can understand
why having the RFID development limited to BIC and CILIP is a bit
irksome for us. Surely having participation limited to a group by
payment (rather than activity or expertise) will always marginalise
knowledgeable individuals and third sector organisations and produce a
less comprehensive standard.
Whatever the host - be it BIC, CILIP, OKFN or whatever - why limit
participation of the forum to members of the host organisation?
Thanks again for the extra details,
MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op