02:00:23 #startmeeting 02:00:23 Meeting started Tue Aug 2 02:00:23 2011 UTC. The chair is Brooke. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 02:00:23 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 02:00:40 Haere Mai, Welcome to the Koha Community Meeting, now at the right time and everything. 02:00:42 meeting, take two :) 02:00:46 :) 02:00:48 :) 02:00:53 please feel free to introduce yerselves please #info it, too 02:01:09 #info Chris Cormack, Catalyst IT, Release manager 3.6 02:01:19 #info Jane Wagner, LibLime/PTFS 02:01:20 #info Liz Rea, Northeast Kansas Library System 02:01:20 Irma from CALYX 02:01:22 #info Paul Poulain, BibLIbre 02:01:28 #info Owen Leonard, Nelsonville Public Library 02:01:29 #info Bob Birchall, CALYX information essentials 02:01:31 Chris is lurking over my shoulder, until he subsribes 02:01:32 #info Shelley Gurney, Catalyst IT 02:01:33 #info Jared Camins-Esakov, C & P Bibliography Services 02:01:33 #info Ian Walls, ByWater Solutions, 3.6 QA Manager 02:01:43 #info Paul Nielsen, Hauraki District Libraries 02:01:51 #info Katrin Fischer, BSZ 02:02:07 #info MJ Ray, software.coop 02:02:09 #info Irma Birchall, CALYX information essentials 02:02:14 Project Koha_master build #352: UNSTABLE in 43 mn: http://jenkins.koha-community.org/job/Koha_master/352/ 02:02:15 * cnighswonger: Bug 5263 - Add support for including fields from the ISSUES table in advanced due notices 02:02:15 04Bug http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5263 enhancement, PATCH-Sent, ---, cnighswonger, ASSIGNED , Add support for including fields from the ISSUES table in advanced due notices 02:02:16 * Katrin.Fischer.83: Bug 5418: Follow up fix for translated sys pref sql files 02:02:16 04Bug http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5418 enhancement, PATCH-Sent, ---, kmkale, ASSIGNED , New itemBarcodeInputFilter for libsuite8 style barcodes 02:02:20 nen 02:02:27 heh even, i nearly made it 02:02:47 #info Joann Ransom. NZ. HLT 02:03:34 movin' along 02:03:41 #topic EOL on 3.2 02:03:51 do we have a chris_n ? 02:03:58 if not ill cover this 02:04:08 floor's yours, champ 02:04:12 08:20 there's been no activity on 3.2.x now since last release and no volunteers to take it over, so I'm going to lobby for its EOL at tomorrow's meeting 02:04:42 im happy with that decision, any volunteers to take it over .. otherwise its EOL 02:04:47 +1 02:04:53 +1 02:04:56 +1 02:04:58 +1 02:04:59 +1 02:05:16 +1 02:05:17 +1 02:05:31 Sounds like .... 02:05:44 morning all 02:06:07 yep i reckon thats an #agreed .. unless ... ? 02:06:24 +1 02:06:28 #agreed EOL on 3.2 02:06:32 #info Mason James, KohaAloha 02:06:34 movin' on 02:06:38 #info Mason James, KohaAloha 02:06:50 snap 02:06:51 Oops: echo! 02:06:56 #topic Roadmap to 3.4 02:07:15 with no chris_n, ill try to cover this also 02:07:23 * Brooke assumed as much. 02:07:28 3.4.3 was released last week, while we were at the nz koha users group 02:07:58 it was held up a little by the translation process, working to get that fixed for 3.4.4 02:08:04 otherwise its business as usual 02:08:33 packages for it exist at debian.koha-community.org 02:09:00 and at https://launchpad.net/~koha/+archive/koha-stable 02:09:03 for ubuntu natty 02:09:12 thats all ive got 02:09:24 hooray 02:09:27 music to my ears. 02:09:32 packages_for_natty++ 02:09:36 Any questions for the man that's not here? 02:09:37 its all trucking along really nicely. 02:10:09 maybe we can point that there is someone working on security holes those days. 02:10:16 #topic Roadmap to 3.6 02:10:37 http://koha-releasemanagement.branchable.com/posts/Work_for_3.6.x/ 02:11:09 nothing new to report, work is continuing nicely, havent had to pull anything out yet 02:11:16 so the testing is working well 02:11:42 ill expect a bunch more pushed on friday 02:11:48 #link http://koha-releasemanagement.branchable.com/posts/Work_for_3.6.x/ 02:12:07 but its all on target 02:12:49 well done everyone who is involved. 02:13:00 movin' on 02:13:06 #topic Listing Requirements. 02:13:20 I'm going to flip the agenda 02:13:22 and stick 2 first. 02:13:33 do we want a link back to the community website? 02:13:44 Yes, imho 02:13:57 Yes 02:14:00 i have no issue with that 02:14:06 me neither 02:14:07 +1 02:14:09 specially given a period to comply 02:14:11 +1 02:14:12 yes 02:14:14 +1 02:14:14 +1 02:14:17 +1 02:14:22 +1 02:14:26 I believe that is reasonable. +1 02:14:27 +1 02:14:30 +1 02:15:15 +1 02:15:28 +1 02:15:37 mandatory: no link back = no listing 02:15:37 #agreed bare minimum requirement for listing on the community website is a link from a vendor's site to the community website 02:15:43 now 02:15:47 for non compliance on that 02:15:55 the suggestion was 3 months 02:15:58 is that reasonable? 02:16:01 #info Brendan Gallagher ByWater Solutions 02:16:02 i think that is too long 02:16:12 i think 5 business days 02:16:12 seems like a lot of time for a 10 min job 02:16:19 that seems a bit short 02:16:28 ok - 10 then 02:16:29 one month? 02:16:33 it is a 5 min job 02:16:33 1 month 02:16:41 1 month 02:16:42 no less than 2 weeks 02:16:45 1 month seems reasonable to me 02:16:46 people are either part of the koha community or not. 02:16:49 If the link back is mandatory, doesn't that mean they don't get listed unless there's a link? 02:16:59 Are we talking about rules about pulling a listing? 02:17:01 1 month seems reasonable to me too 02:17:07 the philosphical argument will have been / should have been carried out well before asking to list 02:17:10 yes, but sometimes ppl have a stupid cms and it takes them a while to change their site 02:17:27 i dont think it hurts us giving htem a month? 02:17:29 or web admin is on vacation 02:17:30 maybe its a checklist: do this and then we list 02:17:36 they might *remove* that link , too ? 02:17:49 1 month period now to check allexisting listings comply 02:17:53 I'm hearing alignment on 1 month... 02:18:01 are there objections to my bad ears? 02:18:02 mutters .... 02:18:59 you looking for +1s for 1 month? 02:19:02 Can someone clarify? 02:19:09 that's what I'm trying to do here 02:19:10 so 02:19:11 so moved that companies have 1 month from submission to link back to k-c.org 02:19:12 1 month is agreeable for anyone currently listed to add the link if its not already thre 02:19:12 We list them, and *then* give them a month to comply? 02:19:14 I will say 02:19:19 for grandfathering purposes 02:19:29 +1 for 1 month time frame for compliance 02:19:35 agree: grandfathering only, otherwise link back and then we list 02:20:02 my apologies, i must depart early. 02:20:05 please do +1 02:20:08 +! 02:20:10 for the record. 02:20:10 oleonard: some contacts are already listed, but dont currently comply 02:20:10 +1 02:20:14 +1 02:20:17 +1 02:20:17 +1 02:20:19 +1 02:20:19 +1 02:20:20 +1 02:20:26 +1 02:20:26 +1 02:20:30 +1 02:20:36 +1 02:20:49 +1 02:21:22 k seeing no objects 02:21:26 objections even 02:21:30 +1 02:21:56 #agreed 1 month to be in compliance for currently listed vendors. (So do check your websites and ensure a link back to k-c.org) 02:22:01 (I volunteer to check the listed companies, notify the non-compliant, and post the results to the list) 02:22:09 wizzyrea++ 02:22:12 wizzyrea++ 02:22:16 wizzyrea++ 02:22:21 wizzyrea ++ 02:22:21 wizzyrea++ 02:22:27 whoa whoa 02:22:34 ;) 02:22:47 ++ 02:23:02 und nao for the first part 02:23:04 ok folks, any requirements as to *where* the link is, on a vendors website? 02:23:20 #topic Listing Requirements -- Legitamacy 02:23:29 ooh 02:23:32 good point mtj 02:23:38 I think the main koha page 02:23:44 obvious 02:23:45 cait++ 02:23:46 was a good suggestion 02:23:49 mtj, we said "home page or main koha page" iirc 02:23:49 first page? 02:23:52 front page definitely 02:23:53 no not firstpage 02:23:59 not all companies do only koha 02:24:06 good point 02:24:13 main koha page then 02:24:21 I think on the product page for koha offerings, should the company do multiple things 02:24:21 yep 02:24:27 i dont want sneaky vendors hiding that kc.org link in a tiny font-size , etc 02:24:44 paul_p: i agree 02:24:46 indeed 02:24:52 mtj: color: white; background: white? 02:25:04 imo, it's a proud thing to be a Koha vendor, they would have no reason not to affiliate themselves with the project 02:25:18 It has to promote the community. The company will be supportive of the community or not. And that will be evident from the way the link is set up. Its an objective test. 02:25:18 this probably needs serious thought: re font size, colour options, 02:25:24 and if they don't, then I don't think they really want to be listed. 02:25:40 i dont think we need rules about font size 02:25:48 logo? 02:25:51 Bob++ 02:25:55 yes but i can think of a compnay who will want tobe listed but willnot want to promote the koha-community site 02:25:56 I agree with BobB and rangi 02:25:58 keep it simple 02:25:58 its pretty easy to point out someone is being devious 02:26:01 yeah 02:26:18 rules schmules 02:26:27 Mr. Poulain's wisdom about time wasted comes to mind, here. 02:26:29 even easier to make it very clear how to comply and avoid nasty discussions and claims down the track 02:26:56 if you want to start dictating font size 02:26:59 my vote is pulled 02:27:08 because that is just silly 02:27:18 it has to fit in with the look of the site its on 02:27:37 I agree 02:27:46 ditto 02:27:47 a vendor that's fit to be listed will show their affiliation. 02:27:56 (proudly) 02:28:20 table specifics, or further duke this out? 02:28:41 can we just say a reasonable link? 02:28:41 should we just say "provide a link that is normally visible" or something like that 02:28:43 yes, i think my point re: font-size is unnecessary 02:28:55 normally visible is fine by me 02:28:56 that would point that it's also non necessary to have a proeminent link 02:28:57 easy to judge 02:29:39 so 02:29:59 provide a visible link from the main koha page? 02:30:05 I have to go, nice meeting you 02:30:11 the link will be on the koha product offering page, in a normally visible manner 02:30:23 I'm not fond of normally 02:30:29 makes me think of quantum physics. 02:30:36 lol 02:31:11 why not say link 02:31:37 provide a link from the main koha page 02:31:47 so that folks don't #fffff on an #ffffff background 02:32:09 I think it's obvious that that doesn't meet the requirements 02:32:30 well, it's also obvious that certain property is communal, but here we are. 02:32:34 "the kc.org link should be easily visible on the vendor's Koha offering page" 02:32:47 easily visible is ok for me 02:32:53 ok for me too 02:32:58 +1 02:32:59 i move to include "provide a visible link back to k-c.org on the main Koha page for your site" 02:33:06 oops not meant to vote. 02:33:17 (don't see a big difference between easily and normally, so won't cut hairs in 4 ;-) ) 02:33:53 wizzyrea++ 02:34:05 so vote on that? I guess? 02:34:44 gimme an unconventional vote here: either +1 for wizzyrea or +1 for mtj if ye'd prefer 02:34:58 +1 wizzyrea :) 02:35:03 right 02:35:11 gentleman effectively withdraws his motion 02:35:13 so then 02:35:19 +1 02:35:20 +1 02:35:22 any objections on wizzyrea's proposal? 02:35:24 +1 02:35:25 +1 02:35:30 +1 02:35:32 +1 02:35:43 +1 02:35:48 +1 02:36:29 #agreed provide a visible link back to k-c.org on the main Koha page for your site 02:36:38 back to the first part 02:36:39 * wizzyrea will update the listing requirements 02:36:57 #action wizzyrea will update the listing requirements on the website 02:37:12 from the agenda: reinstate "legitimate" from the originally-agreed criteria shown 02:37:31 * Brooke is not neutral on this at all. You've been warned. 02:37:37 can we get the whole sentence? 02:37:49 and a def of legitimate to go with it? 02:37:53 Background being the current language doesn't reflect what was voted on? 02:37:56 it's got links, go look at the agenda. 02:38:39 http://stats.workbuffer.org/irclog/koha/2010-05-05#i_434754 02:39:02 Entries will be added if they represent a current proffer of Koha services. Entries that are obviously spam (i.e., not relevant to Koha services) will not be accepted. 02:39:11 is what it says now 02:39:16 2. they get accepted if it is a legitamate proffer of Koha services 02:39:25 Entries will be added if they represent a current, legitimate proffer of Koha services. Entries that are obviously spam (i.e., not relevant to Koha services) will not be accepted. 02:39:32 is what it would be 02:40:02 my skin crawls on this one at having legitimacy police. 02:40:16 cait: From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]: Legitimate 1. Accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements; lawful; as, legitimate government; legitimate rights; the legitimate succession to the throne; a legitimate proceeding of an officer; a legitimate heir. [1913 Webster] 02:40:16 From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856) [bouvier]: LEGITIMATE. That which is according to law; as, legitimate children, are lawful children, born in wedlock, in contradistinction to bastards; legitimate authority, or lawful power, in opposition to usurpation. 02:40:16 02:40:19 I am also not fond of a single person blocking another. 02:40:19 okay, Brooke. 02:40:36 I do not wish to be the one deciding legitimacy. 02:41:28 If we say "legitimate" we have to have an established procedure for deciding it 02:41:38 Do we want to get into that? 02:42:22 we will have to at some point .. 02:42:24 well... I think spending a large part of this meeting on this question is not wise 02:42:28 that is to say, you're welcome to add it back, but I won't be the one judging 02:43:23 I feel we must, else we are expecting website maintainers to direct people to unlawful sites, which is often a crime itself. 02:43:42 no 02:43:48 as research professionals 02:43:57 we are responsible for our own decisions, poor as they might be 02:44:18 caveat emptor. 02:44:26 slef, I think that is not a valid argument. The page can easily say the listings are provided as a convenience; you must do your own due diligence. I thought it used to say that, in fact. 02:44:47 i think you are confusing reasonable with legitimate 02:44:57 slef is talking in terms of lawful and unlawful 02:45:13 not are they just not ratbags 02:45:18 Yes, this is a much baser requirement. 02:45:47 Much as I would love us to have a "no ratbags" policy, I think that would be too hard to make stick. 02:46:11 Just as hard as defining "legitimate" 02:46:19 a very common turn of phrase outside the hallowed halls of law school is that there's no law against being an arsehole. 02:46:33 exactly 02:46:45 but this is against listing unlawful sites 02:46:48 not assholes 02:47:03 Why is defining legitimate hard? Let someone cite the law being broken, then see if the requestor rebuts. 02:47:04 then it's redundant. 02:47:22 slef, what law are you relying on here? 02:47:33 and the courts are there to decide legitimacy, not the community. 02:47:39 slef: What if there is no clear "winner?" 02:47:49 slef: its hard , because we are not lawyers? 02:48:10 what do we lose by having the word there? 02:48:26 a lot of time 02:48:31 what about some plain english 'tests': 02:48:31 how? 02:48:35 oleonard: then we probably have to pick a jury :-/ but when has there been no clarity? 02:48:35 because it's then assumed that we are patrolling things 02:48:43 do you support koha? 02:48:47 its assumed by listing people we are already 02:48:52 as in install support etc 02:48:58 thats the root problem 02:49:03 so isnt that the only question to be asked 02:49:15 is that by listing them, the assumption is we approve of them 02:49:16 its not a quality test or 'googness' test 02:49:22 its a yes or no 02:49:32 instead of having a complex set of rules, how about a majority vote on suspect sites/providers? then nothing needs to be done unless someone raises it at a meeting 02:49:40 This directory and its contents, including but not limited to the links to other sites, purveyors, providers, and vendors of other goods, services, or information, whether for informational purposes or in the form of paid advertisement, are made available by the Koha community on an “as is” basis and without any warranties of any kind as to accuracy, merchantability, or fitness of a vendor for a particular service. 02:49:45 rangi, as I said earlier, if that's the assumption, then make it plain by a disclaimer on the page. 02:49:45 i just dont think having the word makes it any different 02:49:49 that would imply that that's a poor assumption. 02:49:53 I feel we cannot disclaim all editorial responsibility if there is any moderation at all. 02:50:00 what slef said 02:50:05 either its free for all 02:50:06 or its not 02:50:22 you cant disclaim moderation and enforce the link back 02:50:24 what he said 02:50:38 if you priovide koha support then you get listed 02:50:38 it's not an on or off toggle 02:50:45 you can easily enforce a link back 02:50:50 and have your disclaimer. 02:50:54 they aren't mutually exclusive. 02:50:55 If we just want to let people spam links into a search engine, let's find or make a plugin that allows people to do that. 02:51:00 If you appear to provide koha support... 02:51:26 remember a million years ago when joshua was a still a nice guy and ptfs wanted to be listed but because it was a direct competitor for liblime he refused to list 02:51:29 that was wrong. 02:51:32 i suspect we probbaly have a stalemate on this, and it wont be resolved this meeting 02:51:53 id like to move on 02:51:56 rangi++ 02:52:01 rangi++ 02:52:09 rangi++ 02:52:09 +1 02:52:11 rangi++ 02:52:15 I suggest those with a dog in this fight present argument to the mailing list if they wish 02:52:35 Owen: great turn of phrase :) 02:52:58 oleonard +1 02:53:05 yeah, sadly, I agree, but I'm really disappointed that people are willing to block such a basic, simple requirement which was previously acceptable. 02:53:18 tabling this unless there's a really bloody good show of votes 02:53:23 fwiw, i have no issue adding the word, but lets move on 02:53:50 is there a resolution we can test with a vote? 02:54:14 I'm not hearing one 02:54:29 that's not procedural 02:54:32 it's informational 02:54:33 I've only what was originally said. 02:54:39 I'm not sensing concensus. 02:54:43 vote for a disclaimer on the list page? 02:54:50 -1 irresponsible 02:54:51 the disclaimer is ez to add 02:55:07 it's already there on the http://koha-community.org/support/paid-support/ page 02:55:14 I'd love to see it on ALL pages 02:55:20 that are vendor related 02:55:58 I suspect it doesn't get read+understood anyway but doing a survey to confirm that and other stuff is a topic for another meeting. 02:56:02 lol, facepalm re: disclaimer :/ 02:56:13 slef++ 02:56:33 Knew I'd seen it somewhere. 02:57:05 k tabled 02:57:11 I did not note a bloody good show 02:57:20 #topic KohaCon2011 02:57:41 did anyone get an update from kmkale? 02:58:11 The papers I had submitted have been approved recently. No other news 02:58:12 not specifically for this meeting... I think I was cc'd on some emails that jransom and Brooke also got? 02:58:20 I haven't heard from him for a couple of weeks. 02:58:33 but I've been afk so I may have missed stuff 02:59:09 afk? 02:59:09 hmmm... afk is away from keyboard 02:59:28 Thanks wahanui :) 02:59:49 anyone in house from India in general? 03:00:43 *crickets* 03:00:51 movin' on then 03:00:59 #topic KohaCon12 03:01:09 Strange, it's a decent hour there 03:01:34 I'm going and I'm very excited :) 03:02:01 jransom, we will meet here then. I'm going too, with 2 other BibLibre staff 03:02:15 im going tooo :p 03:02:22 yay 03:02:22 (1 librarian -francois- and one techie -julian-) 03:02:24 * Brooke is going to 11. Dunno about 12 yet. 03:02:42 i plan on eating myself silly! 03:03:18 me too 03:03:26 anything relevant to KohaCon2012 03:03:30 ? 03:04:07 other news 03:04:07 not specifically for this meeting... I think I was cc'd on some 03:04:07