tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post7446010596867202471..comments2011-04-13T20:16:16.736-04:00Comments on The Indecent Librarian: Why My Library Is Looking At Koha.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-33115714208623661142007-11-11T09:29:00.000-05:002007-11-11T09:29:00.000-05:00A competitive bid would have prevented the percept...A competitive bid would have prevented the perception issue. Competition, or the possibility of competition, produces many benefits beyond solving the perception issue. <BR/><BR/>Your points are not alien to me, and what you have said is logical. I simply think it best to avoid perception issues before they occur. I do have to chuckle at the irony of an open source developer arguing the merits of a sole source contract. I do see where you could have that condition, with any project based on expertise, but it does make me chuckle.Mr. Insanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745327805428808924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-14403616762766398222007-11-10T14:39:00.000-05:002007-11-10T14:39:00.000-05:00Hi Erik:About the courier service, you said "The l...Hi Erik:<BR/><BR/>About the courier service, you said "The lowest 'qualified' bidder. It's the responsibility of the bid writer to state the conditions that constitute qualified. Bids are first graded on qualification. Whatever the bid price the bidder must be qualified."<BR/><BR/>Later, you complained about the process by which Equinox was awarded the support contract for Evergreen at PINES. "They could have put the project out for bid. If Equinox answered and was awarded the bid based on merit there would be little room for a perception issue."<BR/><BR/>I'm not from Georgia, but I assume the Board of Regents was smart enough to recognize that there would only be one company that would be qualified to bid on the contract at that point in time - the company that employs the original developers of the 150,000 lines of code that make up Evergreen. If any other company submitted a bid at that time (February 2007 or something like that?) they would have been laughed out of the room.<BR/><BR/>To date, there have been only a handful of other developers who have demonstrated that they're familiar enough with the code to contribute to the project. I'm one of them. I'm hoping that that changes over time, and I can vouch that the original Evergreen developers bend over backwards to support people interested in contributing to, using, or just trying out Evergreen -- even though that might mean that a year or two down the road some other company might be able to legitimately position themselves as capable of supporting and custom developing Evergreen.<BR/><BR/>So sure - in another year or so, a competitive bid process would make sense. But given the circumstances in February (I think?), it would have been a waste of everyone's time to go through that exercise for the purpose of leaving "little room for a perception issue". It sounds like all that was needed from the Board of Regents was just a clear explanation of events and why the choice was made.denialshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07168473165761877482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-52517079871312724932007-11-07T13:30:00.000-05:002007-11-07T13:30:00.000-05:00OK, I can see your point there.OK, I can see your point there.Mike Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07609787046335336879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-90620746314113514092007-11-07T11:01:00.000-05:002007-11-07T11:01:00.000-05:00Mike K,I do not think many would have a problem wi...Mike K,<BR/><BR/>I do not think many would have a problem with your side business. I've known reference librarians to do extensive contracted genealogy research, using library resources, after work hours as a side concern. Computer work, which I have myself performed, is no different. As long as your trustees do not have a problem with this arrangement then it's probably not a problem. Others may perceive it differently, but it's not an uncommon arrangement.<BR/><BR/>This isn't an apples to apples comparison. I have little doubt BOR would allow an illegal action. Somewhere there is probably a rule or code section that specifically forbids BOR from breaking any law. Perception is another matter. I think if GPLS/PINES/BOR wanted to completely avoid a perception issue there was a very easy way to accomplish this. They could have put the project out for bid. If Equinox answered and was awarded the bid based on merit there would be little room for a perception issue.Mr. Insanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745327805428808924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-84934906571967616322007-11-06T17:45:00.000-05:002007-11-06T17:45:00.000-05:00mike k, You say you don't advertise while you are ...mike k, You say you don't advertise while you are on library time. When someone needs help at home do you still refer them to Geek Squad or do you give them your card? As far as the GPLS/Equinox relationship...I agree that Equinox probably didn't do anything wrong. But the developers did get to develop a commodity (that they could keep/share) while being paid. Maybe there is nothing wrong with that. I just think it's good to look back and evaluate. Certainly there are lessons to be learned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-23674577799836162852007-11-06T13:05:00.000-05:002007-11-06T13:05:00.000-05:00"Beyond that, maybe it's worthwhile to make patron...<I>"Beyond that, maybe it's worthwhile to make patrons directly share in the costs of transiting items."<BR/><BR/><B>The State Aid Rules prevent cost recovery on a basic library service. Lending amongst PINES libraries should be considered a basic service. Charging for a hold would make a library ineligible for state aid. </B></I><BR/><BR/>Ah. i figured there was an ethical counterargument to be made in any case but I wasn't aware of that rule. Very well, passing on a portion of the costs is out. I still think it would be beneficial to let patrons know that there <I>is</I> a cost involved.<BR/><BR/>Also Erik, I think your last comment "Many feel that GPLS/PINES provided startup capitol for Equinox." states it more clearly and with less animosity than I've heard before. I don't agree though. Jason's account makes it clear that it was GPLS choise to move the Equinox staff to an external contractor role. I don't think you can fault them for offering the support service in the first place.<BR/><BR/>To offer a simpler analogy--I was hired to (among other things) provide computer help for our local patrons. I often bumped up against patrons wanting help with their home machines (or even phoning the library for tech support!). As a library employee my hands are rightfully tied here--it's not my job to provide support for non library computers as that's not one of the services we offer the community. But after a year of sending patrons in need of support to the Geek Squad I opened my own external computer service business. I don't solicit business on the job. Would you argue this unethical on my part? It's my knowledge and time that I'm selling.<BR/><BR/>The additional argument some have raised, most recently J Pickle's comment: <I>"What they are developing with state money is intellectual capital, not an actual product that can be carried out the door."</I> is, in my opinion, erroneous. It is another case of misunderstanding open-source software. GPLS got what they contracted for--the software exists and is in use. They could sever ties with Equinox at the end of their contract and EG wouldn't go away. Equinox is selling their knowledge and time, NOT the software package. As others have again and again pointed out, anyone can come in and offer support for EG, and at least one other company does so. At worst, you could say that the dev team constructed the code in such a way as to render it difficult for others to comprehend and therefore rewrite or support, so as to create a market for their services. Until a coder takes a look at the program and tells us this is the case, I think it would be unwise and unkind to level this or other unsupported charges.Mike Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07609787046335336879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-24111448228208968432007-11-05T12:16:00.000-05:002007-11-05T12:16:00.000-05:00Jason,Thanks for taking the time to shed some ligh...Jason,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for taking the time to shed some light on these issues. For each point you made, there is a valid counterpoint. All legality aside, there is a real perception issue here. Many feel that GPLS/PINES provided startup capitol for Equinox.Mr. Insanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745327805428808924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-1160851103856221782007-11-03T23:14:00.000-04:002007-11-03T23:14:00.000-04:00I can honestly say that when I first got wind of E...I can honestly say that when I first got wind of Equinox, my first thought was, "We've been duped." Comparing what professors do on the side isn't the same thing, at least in my mind. What they are developing with state money is intellectual capital, not an actual product that can be carried out the door.J Picklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17442681492481627299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-45093497663610795922007-11-03T23:05:00.000-04:002007-11-03T23:05:00.000-04:00I really like the look of MaineCat, a partnership ...I really like the look of MaineCat, a partnership of Maine's academic, public, & special libraries. You can view their statewide catalog at<BR/><BR/>http://mainecat.maine.edu<BR/><BR/>What's truly wonderful is their participating agreement. They have a few "general" policies, but for the most part libraries retain their autonomy. They even go so far as to let local libraries decide if they will allow "visiting" patrons, or walk-in patrons from other libraries. They also let patrons request their own ILLs.J Picklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17442681492481627299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-31837338100979724302007-11-03T22:31:00.000-04:002007-11-03T22:31:00.000-04:00Looking up a patron's account is much easier and m...Looking up a patron's account is much easier and more precise with Evergreen. There are multiple ways to narrow your seach for a common name...zip code, street name, city, to name a few. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this is such a problem for PINES libraries. It's basic customer service. We could even limit the number of lookups they were allowed by leaving an alert message on the account. This is one of the advantages Evergreen has over Sirsi. Why not use it?J Picklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17442681492481627299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-64237712332385859802007-11-02T17:17:00.000-04:002007-11-02T17:17:00.000-04:00mike k said"as always, the contract goes to the lo...mike k said<BR/><BR/>"as always, the contract goes to the lowest bidder. My guess is the competing bids were all higher because they better estimated the costs of delivering as many items as we requested."<BR/><BR/>The lowest 'qualified' bidder. It's the responsibility of the bid writer to state the conditions that constitute qualified. Bids are first graded on qualification. Whatever the bid price the bidder must be qualified. <BR/><BR/>Maybe the third time will be the charm.<BR/><BR/>"Beyond that, maybe it's worthwhile to make patrons directly share in the costs of transiting items."<BR/><BR/>The State Aid Rules prevent cost recovery on a basic library service. Lending amongst PINES libraries should be considered a basic service. Charging for a hold would make a library ineligible for state aid.Mr. Insanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745327805428808924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-73861451864116366102007-11-02T16:50:00.000-04:002007-11-02T16:50:00.000-04:00>Jason, maybe you should go ahead and explain how ...>Jason, maybe you should go ahead and explain how Equinox became a company.<BR/><BR/>Sure, I can do that.<BR/><BR/>>The original position was there was no desire to form a company.<BR/><BR/>As far as I know (and I believe anyone working with the project will bear this out), there was never an "original position" in any direction from anyone. It just wasn't on the radar; we had enough on our minds already. We helped other folks in the interest of good will and promoting Evergreen as an open source alternative for libraries; yet, ultimately GPLS was not in the business of supporting people outside of Georgia, and interest was growing. Although we really wanted libraries outside Georgia to be able to operate Evergreen on their own, we also began to recognize that there were some libraries that needed a commercial context to feel comfortable with library automation. It all just seemed a natural progression. There was never an expectation that we _wouldn't_ form a company. <BR/> <BR/>>One of the founders repeatedly claimed it was completely legal and had been cleared by BOR.<BR/><BR/>BOR, for those unfamiliar, stands for the Board of Regents for the University System of Georgia. They're the parent organization for the Georgia Public Library Service. BOR, in accordance to policy (there was no question of legality here), cleared us to form a company on the side, much like professors in Universities are allowed to do consulting on the side. The only stipulation in such an arrangement is that you can't double-dip into state money. So at the time, we were not targeting customers in the state of Georgia. We worked under this arrangement for several months, and then, to our surprise, BOR staff changed their minds (which policy says they can do). They asked us to decide whether we wanted to work for GPLS, or for Equinox, but not both. At this point, the four developers chose to work for Equinox, and the state contracted with us.<BR/><BR/>This actually turned out to be a positive move, for several reasons:<BR/><BR/>1) Georgia is a work "at-will" state, which meant, as GPLS employees, we could leave at any time. However, as Equinox, GPLS has a contractual hold on us. Sure, we're replaceable, but PINES already has a long list of enhancements they want implemented, so why waste time bringing new developers up to speed when we're already on the ground running and they already know our work ethic? At one time I was a contractor for GPLS. At another time I was an employee. Now I'm a contractor again. One of us was _always_ a contractor. As long as GPLS is getting what they pay for, what does it matter? The fact that we have the flexibility of hiring additional staff for needs that are outside the interest of PINES and GPLS is a good thing.<BR/><BR/>2) Georgia benefits when others adopt Evergreen or even become interested in Evergreen. However, Georgia isn't in the business of directly supporting people outside of Georgia, and many libraries simply can't afford to hire full-time support and development staff for any automation system. Those libraries absolutely require vendors or they would never adopt Evergreen.<BR/><BR/>How does Georgia benefit if others adopt Evergreen? In a nutshell, open source projects take advantage of economies of scale.<BR/><BR/>1) More libraries means more resources, and more sharing of development efforts. These resources could include developers, domain experts, technical writers, testers, and even funding.<BR/><BR/>2) More libraries means more incentive for other support companies to form around Evergreen. Equinox has an advantage now, but the software is open source, and at least one other open source vendor advertises services for Evergreen. It would be very smart for the existing ILS vendors to adopt Evergreen and leverage their brand power, but I doubt you'll see that happen because it would be a change in their business model. They make most of their money selling software licenses. We can only sell our time and expertise. But more people are gaining Evergreen expertise everyday. That knowledge and expertise is shared, not hoarded.<BR/><BR/>-- Jasonphasefxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861551979558121351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-69377360395885128222007-11-02T16:44:00.000-04:002007-11-02T16:44:00.000-04:00When two companies get so bogged down under the we...<I>When two companies get so bogged down under the weight of our massive intransits that they are unable to fill our needs in a timely manner then maybe it is because we are putting too many items in the courier system at one time.</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree. As big as our transit may be, it's not beyond the scope of what a courier could theoretically handle. Shoot, Amazon manages make, what, 10000 more deliveries than we do? It's not an apples to apples comparison of course but my point is it's not really an overwhelming service we're asking for, it's just that, as always, the contract goes to the lowest bidder. My guess is the competing bids were all higher because they better estimated the costs of delivering as many items as we requested.<BR/><BR/><I>the only way to handle this problem is to limit the number of holds any one patron can have at any one time.</I><BR/>Again, I disagree. I think the first thing we can do--after we get a courier that will live up to its contract, that is--is make it clearer to patrons what placing a hold entails on our end. Show them a confirmation that informs them that holds may come from across the state and as a result may take anywhere from 1 day to several weeks to fulfill. Better yet, allow patrons to choose whether they want their hold to come from outside the local system or not.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that, maybe it's worthwhile to make patrons directly share in the costs of transiting items. Charge 5 cents for local system holds and 10 cents for system wide ones (or 20/50 cents, or $5/$10--the amount itself is relatively unimportant). The number of holds would drastically go down, patrons couldn't help but realize there's a cost associated with getting books delivered, and we sure as hell would see less holds not picked up at all. Of course, the flip side of charging for the service is that patrons service expectations would go up.Mike Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07609787046335336879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-76417772618294368222007-11-02T09:46:00.000-04:002007-11-02T09:46:00.000-04:00I believe we have issues with both PINES and EG. ...I believe we have issues with both PINES and EG. <BR/>We have problems weekly with the system slowing down. Someone should take care of this problem before PINES adds any more libraries to the system.<BR/><BR/>The card catalog is a mess, also. <BR/><BR/>As for holds, we had difficulties with Velocity first and now STAT. It seems to me that the fault could be ours. When two companies get so bogged down under the weight of our massive intransits that they are unable to fill our needs in a timely manner then maybe it is because we are putting too many items in the courier system at one time. the only way to handle this problem is to limit the number of holds any one patron can have at any one time.<BR/><BR/>Sorry to say the Help Desk is of little help these days. We need to fix this problem right away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-3797301201198946722007-11-02T07:46:00.000-04:002007-11-02T07:46:00.000-04:00Anonymous blogging. I'm sorry some fear retributi...Anonymous blogging. <BR/><BR/>I'm sorry some fear retribution for posting. This is a real problem for our profession. I've scratched my head and really don't have an answer. The Electronic Frontier Foundation does have some suggestions in the link below. <BR/><BR/>http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/blog-anonymously.php<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately whenever someone posts anonymously there is always a question of credability. I would like everyone who reads the blog to read all comments with an open mind. There may be a very good reason the comment is anonymous that shouldn't detract from the content.Mr. Insanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745327805428808924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-26454234281569093122007-11-02T07:29:00.000-04:002007-11-02T07:29:00.000-04:00"Another thing: Why is a library card required for..."Another thing: Why is a library card required for transactions? Why can't we just look the patron up? That's fine if you are dealing with a relatively small group of patrons rather than a huge database with over a million souls. It's too easy to make a mistake and attach items to someone else's card, especially if you are at a busy front desk."<BR/><BR/>In my mind this is a training issue. I really have a hard time understanding the reasoning on this policy. If a patron wants to check-out a book without a card I look it up. It's that simple. If staff can be trained to search the catalog they can be trained to search the patron database. If the patron lost the card you take the same risk in issuing a replacement. If it's such a problem I do offer a suggestion. In the lookup couldn't an additional search term be used? Lastname and zip come to mind as a way to limit the search results.Mr. Insanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745327805428808924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-21898281406430181072007-11-01T20:35:00.000-04:002007-11-01T20:35:00.000-04:00Cost of ILLNear as I can figure an ILL costs my li...Cost of ILL<BR/><BR/>Near as I can figure an ILL costs my library about $7 to lend and $5 to borrow. That seems reasonable to me. If it were $65 on each end who could afford the service without cost recovery from the patron?Mr. Insanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745327805428808924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-33483397195099313652007-11-01T20:16:00.000-04:002007-11-01T20:16:00.000-04:00Jason, maybe you should go ahead and explain how E...Jason, maybe you should go ahead and explain how Equinox became a company. The original position was there was no desire to form a company. Then one day Equinox is born. Nothing seems to change, everyone was still holding a day job with GPLS. One of the founders repeatedly claimed it was completely legal and had been cleared by BOR. Then one day all the founders, except the one defending the practice, quit GPLS. You really need to clear up that mystery.Mr. Insanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04745327805428808924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-60608661880608167992007-11-01T19:15:00.000-04:002007-11-01T19:15:00.000-04:00From the very beginning, before a single line of c...From the very beginning, before a single line of code was written, PINES knew that a community would have to form around Evergreen for it to become self-sustaining and future-proof. A community of individuals, libraries, and yes, even hired workers. We chose open source for philosophical and pragmatic reasons. Philosophical because software, like speech, should be free and unencumbered. Pragmatic because the open source development model is effective and produces better software. You can handwave and say the software is crap, but as soon as you mention something specific, we will scrutinize it and fix it. It's that simple. And here's a little secret: we want any flaws to be exposed! Even if it comes from nay-sayers and critics. That's how open source works.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter if commercial interests are involved, because they all want the same thing. If I want to help users, does it matter whether I'm being paid to do so or not? What's wrong with enlightened self-interest? You think that PINES should not share Evergreen with those outside of PINES? Then maybe PINES can "give back" Linux, GNU, Apache, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Perl, Python, Ejabberd, Memcached, Mozilla, and all the other open source software that they "exploit". Maybe libraries should stop sharing books. Even proprietary vendors make use of open source software; I think there's only one major vendor that doesn't use Apache for their OPAC, for example. In marketing terms, Evergreen is a commodity. We can't control it or monopolize it, and yes, that was done on purpose. Software should be free and libre.<BR/><BR/>"Prior to the release of the early clients," the developers spent a whole year working with domain experts, conducting focus groups, developing frameworks, and getting feedback on prototypes, before we started in on the actual automation system. If you yourself felt "rejected" in this process, I am very sorry, but the truth of the matter is that we take all the help we can get, and always have. If you are a PINES member, are you subscribed to PINES-DEV? Have you ever responded to a call for help on that list from me? Or were you too busy? Are you subscribed to OPEN-ILS-DEV? Did you try to help anyone there? Did you respond to our calls for help on the open-ils.org blog?<BR/><BR/>All the tools are there for you to become involved. But it does take work. You have to actively participate, and not snipe from the sidelines. You have to become a part of the solution, and you have to share. Yes, it's organic, but that doesn't preclude structured development. We'll take all the QA, usability studies, case studies, domain expertise, etc. that you can give us. We'll also take any common sense advice you can offer.<BR/><BR/>As far as the server-side software being difficult to install goes, yes, it can be a challenge in changing and foreign environments (PINES only has one environment, afterall), and you're more likely to hear from folks having trouble than from folks having success (witness this blog), but folks are having success without help. You only need to visit <A HREF="http://open-ils.org/listserv.php" REL="nofollow">OPEN-ILS-GENERAL</A> to see that. Look for the thread titled "Are there any K-12 Schools Using the Evergreen system?" They're going live with Evergreen without assistance. But what's wrong with asking for help, anyway? I don't see anyone charging $400 per question in the Evergreen community. I don't see any trade secrets or non-disclosure agreements.<BR/><BR/>>"There is one thing for dang sure, though : the (c) symbol that will end up at the end of the name Evergreen."<BR/><BR/>Everyone who contributes code to the software owns the copyright to their code. But the software as a whole is "<A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/" REL="nofollow">copyleft</A>".<BR/><BR/>The only other "intellectual property" involved is the Evergreen trademark, owned and licensed by GPLS, and any possible patents, which the license won't let you exercise. And incidentally, if there is nothing new and innovative in Evergreen, then we really don't have to worry about patents from the decades-old library automation industry, do we?<BR/><BR/>This software is truly free and communal. It'll never belong solely to one individual, organization, or company. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak. You can't put it back in.<BR/><BR/>-- Jasonphasefxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861551979558121351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-21012145610496018492007-11-01T18:20:00.000-04:002007-11-01T18:20:00.000-04:00>Jason, to address one of your comments--speed con...>Jason, to address one of your comments--speed continues to be a serious issue on our end, and I have reason to believe it's not entirely because of our end of things.<BR/><BR/>Thanks Mike! If you would, email me and we can schedule a time to try some things. I'm particularly interested in the results of a traceroute to the PINES server and other sites, to see if any of the hops along the way are suffering from high latency, packet loss, or inconsistent ping times.<BR/><BR/>-- Jason<BR/>jason@esilibrary.comphasefxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861551979558121351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-55724748026649939652007-11-01T18:10:00.000-04:002007-11-01T18:10:00.000-04:00I remember somewhere (ALA website?)that ILL costs ...<I>I remember somewhere (ALA website?)that ILL costs in terms of staff time at both ends ran up to around $65 for each transaction.</I><BR/><BR/>Your memory is in error. The ARL has conducted three nationwide ILL cost analysis studies (1992, 1996, 2002) of ARL libraries - full costs to include average cost per transaction, including staff salaries and wages, benefits, equipment depreciation, fees to paid to suppliers, etc.) All three studies sustained a median total cost (borrower and lender combined) in the vicinity of $27 (unadjusted for inflation).<BR/><BR/>I submit the usual caveats about comparing college/university libraries to public libraries. That said, there's quite a difference between $27 for everything on both sides combined and $65 just for staff for each side of the transaction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-29005236281787687262007-11-01T17:46:00.000-04:002007-11-01T17:46:00.000-04:00Yikes! My coworkers bitch profusely about the spee...Yikes! My coworkers bitch profusely about the speed of the OPAC and hold fulfilments but this is the first time I've heard attacks on the EG dev team's integrity. I'm a bit removed form the fracas but I can testify that in my (limited) communication with the team members they've been responsive and friendly.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, at the risk of sticking my nose out to far, I think the negative comparison to Sirsi reveals a failure to grasp the wider concept of open-source software. If GPLS becomes unhappy with the current developers company they can toss them out and hire new programmers, who can in turn fork the project. Until I hear a coder declare that EG is written poorly or is too complex for outsiders to understand, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the creators. My experience lurking on the open-ils list has been that, if anything, the opposite is true of the code.<BR/><BR/>The one point I wholeheartedly agree with is that the software wasn't developed enough before being released. The Web 2.0 "perpetual beta" meme is one thing--the initial release of EG felt more like a pre-alpha experience on our end.<BR/><BR/>Jason, to address one of your comments--speed continues to be a serious issue on our end, and I have reason to believe it's not entirely because of our end of things. We recently added another T1 line, so we're at about 60% overall bandwidth usage on average. We also recently upgraded to brand new gigabit LAN wiring, so I don't think we're bottlenecking there.<BR/><BR/>To sum up my thoughts--there are legitimate complaints regarding PINES policy. The same might be said for EG itself, but to a much lesser degree, in my opinion. The feeling I get is that the dev team is understaffed--we saw rapid improvement for the first few months, but now the focus has shifted to the acquisitions model at the expense of circ and the OPAC. The client update is coming soon, so maybe I'm off in my perception. To circle back around to PINES: I always thought the furor over holds taking so long was a bit over the top (I'm fine with my holds taking weeks--how long does the average ILL take in comparison?) and, in any case, the fault of lousy courier service more than anything else.<BR/><BR/>-MikeMike Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07609787046335336879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-81750451929057891432007-11-01T13:50:00.000-04:002007-11-01T13:50:00.000-04:00Even posting anonymously on this blog provides eno...Even posting anonymously on this blog provides enough information for certain persons in authority to retaliate against staff members who post. Nevertheless, and at great risk:<BR/><BR/>My experiences with PINES staff and Evergreen have been peppered with problems. Primarily, the software was released without the usual comprehensive testing, and has been full of non-working or poorly designed elements. <BR/><BR/>Prior to the release of the early clients, the design team rejected offers to work closely enough with the actual users of the software to understand the nature of the work, or the minute details of what was really required. This has caused them to constantly react to a plethora of requests and help desk tickets to generate corrections to the software. It is a radical, new, and totally organic, evolutionary approach that, by continually bumping its way down blind alley-ways until it finds the path of least resistance, hopes by a trial and error method to self-correct like an evolving species mutates and evolves. It is nothing like the finalized release of a typical software vendor.<BR/><BR/>If this was an automobile they were selling, every one off the assembly line would end up being a returned lemon; and, with the method now being used by the design team, we end users--instead of being the proud owners of a shiny new car--all become merely the design team's crash test dummies!<BR/><BR/>The removal of the development team--first physically from the building housing other GPLS staff, and then conceptually by forming their own, for-profit company--has alienated them from the work-a-day library "grunts" on the front lines.<BR/><BR/>By using open-sourced software, the team has avoided paying any licensing fees, and has now gone on to develop a product that is so proprietary, that no one outside the team can install it on their own without the team's help. <BR/><BR/>This is exactly the way Sirsi got started when the design team for the Sirsi product developed the Sirsi software using academic resources at Georgia Tech. They, too, were at one time employees of the institution that created the software. The end result was that the for-profit Sirsi company can now do things like charge $400 per request for simple assistance and database maintenance issues. The development team is sure to follow this pattern.<BR/><BR/>Look at another example of the team's haphazardness. In a class that was being held on the reports module, when faced with a classful of students who could not understand the structure or functionality of the software, the design team admitted that they were unable to explain it to the class! To do so would have required a week of instruction in object-orientated database programming. Yet another disconnect between the design team and the end users.<BR/><BR/>More significantly, the design team clearly did not understand the nature of what would be required of the reports, and did not know how to relate it to the MARC and patron records and the transaction logs and circulation mappings in a way that could be intuitively understood or at least quickly grasped by the library staff. Their lack of understanding MARC records led to the creation of report templates that skew or miss data and provide false returns. Nor was there any instruction manual or background material with screen shots to explain the reports in depth. <BR/><BR/>This failure was the result of not connecting with the people who actually did the work prior to creating the product.<BR/><BR/>The lack of manuals has proven to be a very exasperating factor in the use of the software. Practices are left up to each user in a kind of exploratory manner of self-instruction or are left to the amorphous, often outdated resources in an online wiki.<BR/><BR/>There is no standardization of how things are to be done, so any number of procedures not circumsribed by PINES policy or the willy-nilly methods of performing specific tasks within the software end up being created by various libraries and staff members, while holes in the software have allowed some very strange anomalies to creep in.<BR/><BR/>The gist of all this is that the secure, dependable use of Evergreen, given its current highly unstable software, is years away, and even then only after tweaking and repairing all the errors and faults, solidifying manuals and procedures, fully testing and integrating the various modules (several of which have not even been created yet), and adding the input of hundreds of library staff members over time in order to make the software conform to what the larger community of users require, not what the tiny design team, with their very limited focus and understanding, thinks it should have. <BR/><BR/>One can only hope that after these horrific Dark Ages, there will be a tiny Elysium of Enlightenment. <BR/><BR/>There is one thing for dang sure, though : the © symbol that will end up at the end of the name Evergreen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-63841426609916320782007-11-01T12:25:00.000-04:002007-11-01T12:25:00.000-04:00I think it's interesting that Evergreen started ou...I think it's interesting that Evergreen started out as a vision of open-source software that PINES could customize to suit it's needs. PINES staff and Evergreen developers pitched this idea, got it approved, and then set off to "build" this new library software. Then good ole capitalism and greed set in. Open-Source seemed to be selected at first to save PINES tons of money in licensing fees, but now it appears that it was selected so that the developers could "take it with them" when they left and shop their services to other systems across the country. Software companies don't allow employees to take the software they developed with them, yet Equinox found a way around this with open-source. As soon as the software was finished, they formed Equinox to sell their "expertise" on the market. They got paid with PINES money to develop Evergreen, and couldn't wait to get out the door when it was done so they could start pitching it across the country. I think it's questionable that high-ranking PINES staff initially were involved with the private money making venture. So don't act like you are so interested in helping the users, when really you just want to improve the product that your company is trying to sell, and silence any critics that could lower the value of your company's products and services.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134412119445409996.post-16149504462272823962007-11-01T08:29:00.000-04:002007-11-01T08:29:00.000-04:00"The Indecent Librarian exists to provide a forum ..."The Indecent Librarian exists to provide a forum for those with non-conformist views an opportunity to comment on our profession." <BR/><BR/>Non-conformist...that's me! I hope you will be discussing a wide range of topics on your blog.J Picklehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17442681492481627299noreply@blogger.com