Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] AquaBrowser Libraries Group

From: "Edward M. Corrado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:45:24 -0400

I don't see this as an interesting difference at all. Almost all 
[larger] vendor-supplied products in the library world have their own 
discussion lists that are limited to people that use/license their 
products. We even see this with Open Source products such as Koha. 
Although I do not use AquaBrowser, unlike almost all other library 
specific-software of this magnitude I understand that AquaBrowser does 
not have a user group (formal or informal). There currently is very few 
ways (no way?) for users of this product to converse with each other and 
share ideas.

There are numerous reasons for wanting to share information on a closed 
list that can range from not wanting to spam a larger community with a 
"how do activate a widget in product A" to asking questions/sharing 
information that for whatever reason you don't want to or can't share 
with the whole world (e.g. non-disclosure agreements, public relations 
concerns, privacy concerns, not wanting your name in open archives 
attached to something, etc.).  In fact, in some cases you may not even 
want the vendor on the list the way some Voyager systems administrators 
created a list that excluded Endeavor (and now Ex Libris) and 
non-systems people at Voyager sites. This made people feel much more 
comfortable asking questions that maybe they would otherwise be 
embarrassed or reluctant to ask.

I applaud Kathryn for taking the initiative to organize the AquaBrowser 
community by creating the AquaBrowser Libraries Group. From what I 
understand from people that use the product this is something that is 
overdue for the community.

What the library technology world needs is more people like Kathryn that 
try to build community to help each other with whatever software product 
they are using. Sure, in a perfect world maybe everything would be 
completely Open but that is not reality. People that take initiative 
should be praised. They should not be met with snarky comments.

Edward

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]>] On Behalf Of
Barnett, Jeffrey
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 9:05 AM
To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] AquaBrowser Libraries Group

Good point Ed, but I think by the phrase "Licensed sites only" the
intent of the AquaBrowser discussion _is_ to exclude open source.
Interesting difference...

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]>] On Behalf Of
Ed Summers
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 9:19 PM
To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] AquaBrowser Libraries Group

You should also feel free to discuss AquaBrowser on here too ... the
code4lib discussion isn't limited to opensource software.

//Ed
- Hide quoted text -

On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Kathryn Frederick
<[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
 > Please excuse cross-posting.
 >
 > I've set up an AquaBrowser Google Group to share tips and post
 > questions. If your library uses AquaBrowser, please consider joining.
 > This group is restricted, email me at [email-masked] 
<mailto:[email-masked]> and I'll
 > send you an invite.
 >
 > Licensed sites only, please.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Kathryn
 >

---

From: Gabriel Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:01:58 -0400

While the "Interesting difference..." bit may be read as snarky, I
appreciated Jeffrey's post for pointing out that most discussions about
AquaBrowser can't take place on this list due to its lack of membership
restrictions.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:45:24AM -0400, Edward M. Corrado wrote:
> [larger] vendor-supplied products in the library world have their
> own discussion lists that are limited to people that use/license
> their products. We even see this with Open Source products such as
> Koha. Although I do not use AquaBrowser, unlike almost all other
> library specific-software of this magnitude I understand that
> AquaBrowser does not have a user group (formal or informal). There
> currently is very few ways (no way?) for users of this product to
> converse with each other and share ideas.
> 
> There are numerous reasons for wanting to share information on a
> closed list that can range from not wanting to spam a larger
> community with a "how do activate a widget in product A" to asking
> questions/sharing information that for whatever reason you don't
> want to or can't share with the whole world (e.g. non-disclosure
> agreements, public relations concerns, privacy concerns, not wanting
> your name in open archives attached to something, etc.).  In fact,
> in some cases you may not even want the vendor on the list the way
> some Voyager systems administrators created a list that excluded
> Endeavor (and now Ex Libris) and non-systems people at Voyager
> sites. This made people feel much more comfortable asking questions
> that maybe they would otherwise be embarrassed or reluctant to ask.
> 
> I applaud Kathryn for taking the initiative to organize the
> AquaBrowser community by creating the AquaBrowser Libraries Group.
> From what I understand from people that use the product this is
> something that is overdue for the community.
> 
> What the library technology world needs is more people like Kathryn
> that try to build community to help each other with whatever
> software product they are using. Sure, in a perfect world maybe
> everything would be completely Open but that is not reality. People
> that take initiative should be praised. They should not be met with
> snarky comments.
> 
> Edward
>

---

From: Chris Keene <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:03:08 +0000

Hi

I just want to backup Edward's comments.

I'm happy to discuss just about anything openly, though it is useful to 
have product specific lists, and yes at times useful to know that 
certain vendors or third party salesmen are not going to contact you as 
a result of posting.

Aquabrowser has many good points, but has lacked any sort of community, 
add to this the very limited documentation - which could lead to 
confusion as to what is a feature and what is a bespoke addition that 
another site has commissioned/developed. I even tried asking on the 
Aquabrowser Facebook fan page discussion board - its only post!
This mailing list is a very welcome addition.

Chris

On 22/10/2009 15:45, Edward M. Corrado wrote:
>[snip]

-- 
Chris Keene                                     [email-masked]
Technical Development Manager                   Tel (01273) 877950
University of Sussex Library
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/library/

---

From: "K.G. Schneider" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:15:19 -0400

Actually, I didn't think the observations about the Aquabrowser mailing
list were snarky, and I think the comments were interesting and
list-appropriate. It's great that Aquabrowser will have a community
list--that will only help its users/implementors/customers. But once a
mailing list is closed to licensed users, you have then defined one of
the limitations of proprietary software and a strategic advantage of
open source. (Though a limitation that a proprietary-software vendor can
easily finesse, as described below.)

Some of the reasons for limiting the list do not hold water. In an NDA
environment, few people will get granular and frank on an "internal"
list, for the same reason that if they have privacy concerns they won't
post to a closed list: there's no such thing as private email. If you're
in the witness protection program, do not, I repeat do NOT post to the
Aquabrowser internal list. I don't even believe that this list could
offer enough discretion to warrant posts that the posters want to keep
moderately private. If I were contemplating a move from Vendor X, or had
serious issues I didn't want Vendor X to know about, I would do what
lawyers recommend, and which I have put into practice, which is not
write what I can share by phone, not share by phone what I can share
face-to-face, and not say what I can convey with a gesture. (With some
vendors that gesture might be NSFW, but I digress...) Is there anyone
among us who has never seen an email message go where it was not
intended to wander? 

As for winnowing the cruft, yes, that is the value of lists, but Edward,
despite other sound observations, has it a wee backwards. Lists for Koha
and Evergreen, and for that matter all open source projects I know of,
big and small, are open to anyone and are self-policing with respect to
topic discipline. It is the subscriber, not a list manager, who decides
if he or she wishes to participate (passively or actively) in list
communications. The lists may have very active participation from
vendors, but the Koha and Evergreen lists are not vendor-driven (and the
communities wouldn't let them get away with that anyway). 

The *advantages* to having an open list are worth considering for their
strategic value not only to a software community but also to the
vendors. First, you remove any confusion about the list's "privacy."
Things that should not be shared by email, will not be shared by email.
Second, you open the list to potential users/customers. I think some
vendors fear their underwear showing, but if you've got a good product
people understand it will have issues, and happy users, even when they
are discussing a product's issues, are the software's best salespeople.
The community itself can also be as broad as it needs to be. 

These days, a growing number of companies have very intentional
strategies for transparency and openness. The Aquabrowser mailing list
is a very welcome addition to the world of library communications, and
it will help make a good product better. I am not losing any sleep over
the decision to keep this list closed... I don't use the product, and in
the end, I don't care that much. That said, it's my professional
assessment that closing this list to licensed subscribers is a strategic
error. 

Karen G. Schneider