On Jan 26, 2012, at 8:04 PM, MJ Ray wrote:
> Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]>
>> True -- the design model does put software packages at the center
>> and assumes that libraries have made it at least that far in their
>> decision-making process. We don't have a way for providers to list
>> themselves independent of Packages. Perhaps a good way to do this
>> would be for a provider to associate itself with a package type
>> (e.g. integrated library system, digital asset management system,
>> etc.) and then list them out by package type. Thoughts?
> I'm not sure that would cover Gerhard's reasonable request either.
> As a user story, try how software.coop originally got involved in Free
> and Open Source Software in libraries, nigh on ten years ago now: a
> college library approached one of the Internet Service Providers that
> we worked for and asked them to host something. It didn't install
> cleanly, so they introduced us and we developed it a little so that
> it did. Then after supporting that one package, we were open to
> suggestions (we're service-led not investor-led) and now support
> several packages, although Koha is still our headline offer.
> So how would people realise that we are generally interested in
> supporting libraries' development, if we're only listed under
> specific package types?
> Would support pseudo-packages cover this? So, a package type called
> "Support" and pseudo-packages of "Librarian", "Management",
> "Technical", "Programming" and so on?
Hmmm -- you and Gerhard make a strong case for some kind of top-level support for general open source consulting providers. I'll have to think about how this can be done within the data model or if it is something that will have to be done outside the existing data model. (The implemented model, by the way, corresponds pretty closely to the draft posted to http://wiki.code4lib.org/index.php/Registry_E-R_Diagram )
> By the way, why's the F-word missing from the logo on foss4lib.org?
> It would be nice to see freedom reintroduced there.
An oversight between the graphics design group and the technology group. I hope to have it resolved soon.
>> Anyone that has registered for an account (which just requires a
>> valid e-mail address) can add a package:
>> ...as well as any of the other content types (Event, Release,
>> Provider, and Institution). If you're seeing something that is
>> preventing you from doing that, please let me know.
> Sadly it requires more than a valid email address.
> It requires good eyesight (or jumping through hoops with a decaptcha
> That should not be required. And the text really shouldn't imply that
> people with poorer eyesight aren't humans.
You and I have exchanged e-mail about this in the recent past. I am willing to try turning it off, but there is limited people bandwidth to monitor for malicious activity at the moment. If it gets bad, I'll need to turn it back on.
> It looks like it's using drupal: can people be allowed to login with
> OpenID without the eyetest, please? That would open access to users
> of Wordpress/Livejournal/Google/Yahoo/...and places that do allow
> registrations from people with imperfect eyesight.
I can add that to a future development list.
Assistant Director, Technology Services Development
[log in to unmask]
1438 West Peachtree Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30309
Toll Free: 800.999.8558
LYRASIS: Great Libraries. Strong Communities. Innovative Answers.