{"id":1502,"date":"2009-11-04T17:33:19","date_gmt":"2009-11-04T09:33:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/librariansmatter.com\/blog\/?p=1502"},"modified":"2009-11-04T17:33:19","modified_gmt":"2009-11-04T09:33:19","slug":"some-comments-on-sirsis-position-paper-on-open-source-ilms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/librariansmatter.com\/blog\/2009\/11\/04\/some-comments-on-sirsis-position-paper-on-open-source-ilms\/","title":{"rendered":"Some comments on SIRSI’s position paper on Open Source ILMS"},"content":{"rendered":"

The SIRSI\/Dynix marketing document,\u00a0 Integrated Library Systems Platforms on Open Source<\/a>, has generated much critique in the last few days. To catch up with it, there are a number of places to go.<\/p>\n

I have added my own point by point comments on the google doc embedded at the end of this post.<\/p>\n

Stephen Abram’s blog<\/strong><\/p>\n

There has been vigourous debate in the comments on Stephen Abram’s blog post<\/a> – often disjointed due to the fact that comments appear only after Stephen has checked them and added his 2c worth. I understand that he has a spam problem, but it makes it very hard to keep a fluid, open and timely dialogue. Several\u00a0 SIRSI\/Dynix customers have weighed in. They present a rather different picture of the product to that depicted in the position paper.<\/p>\n

Joint Google Doc annotation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jason Griffey – while stuck in an airport on the way back from a conference – set up a google document for anyone who wanted to add annotations.\u00a0 He has blogged about this: Sirsi-Dynix vs Open Source\u00a0Software<\/a> .<\/p>\n

The google doc is here, SIRSI Dynix Position Paper on Open Source annoted by other libraryfolk <\/a>and embedded at the end of this post.\u00a0 I contributed to this. Editors included:\u00a0 Jason Griffey Nicole Engard, Chris Cormack, Toby Greenwalt, Kathryn Greenhill, Karen Schneider, Melissa Houlroyd, Tara Robertson, Dweaver, Lori Ayre, Heather Braum, Laura Crossett, Josh Neff, and a few others who have usernames that Jason could not can\u2019t decipher.<\/p>\n

Scroll down half way to see the start of the commentary, colour coded and initialled so you can see who said what. The start of the document is a collation of the points made below.<\/p>\n

Etherpad<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tim Spalding set up a\u00a0 Etherpad document<\/a> , limited to 16 editors, where a different set of people have been adding their notes.<\/p>\n

Code4Lib wiki pages<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a page on the Code4Lib wiki pointing to all the commentaries on the document<\/a> . Another page on the same wiki has a dump of the Etherpad as on 1 Novemember<\/a> .<\/p>\n

(I started creating a dump of the doc on the Code4 Lib site, with a view to merging it with the etherpad, but time overtook me…If anyone has time to do this – and maybe add in the material from Stephen’s blog , I think a very interesting and comprehensive picture would emerge).<\/p>\n

Outside Libraryland<\/strong><\/p>\n

The story has also been picked up outside of libraryland, notably by ItWire Open Source FUD is alive and kicking<\/a> and Linux Weekly News Hudson: Corporate lobbying against free software<\/a> .<\/p>\n

Here is the SIRSI Dynix Position Paper on Open Source annoted by other libraryfolk <\/a> Google Doc embedded:<\/p>\n