Where goes Koha?

Yesterday I participated in my first IRC session in 14 years.  The occation was a meeting with Koha users and developers on the formation of a Koha foundation. The background is that the US company LibLime has decided to fork Koha, and establish an “Enterprise” edition.  The reasons behind are hard to understand, and for me who just joined the Koha community it seems like a huge departure from the idea of open source, and actually a departure from the idea of sharing that libraries stand for as well.

Since I first discovered Koha a few years ago I have followed the development through information from LibLime and thought they did a wonderful job of promoting open source and still survive as a company by selling services instead of products.  I have held this model up as a possible avenue of survival for norwegian ILS vendors and generally shouted out LibLime praise.

Since the news of the LibLime fork I have tried to understand the implications and how it will affect my library and installation. Fortunately Libriotech who implements our Koha installation and is our main service provider has clearly stated that they stand by the open source version of Koha and that they will not depart from the development and contribution model that has brought Koha to the point where it is today.

LibLime has brought upon its head a lot of dissapointment from developers around the world, and quite a few librarians react to this news as well. I am thus joining the choir of disaproval:-)

But yesterday I participated in a discussion that made me worry about the future of Koha. The purpose of the discussion was to establish some sort of organization that could take ownership of the Koha development and brand and hopefully avoid the situation we have today where LibLime owns the domain name koha.org and in the US have registered a Koha Foundation.

So the community is at a loss. What do we do now? Try to make a foundation that can take care of all the stuff that comes with an organization (for that is in reality what the development and use of Koha is turning into) or just try keep things going the way they have so far?

I know one thing, IRC is not a god format for discussions like this. I know that most of the participants where used to IRC from discussions and meetings on the development of Koha, but for a newbie like me, or any other “normal” librarian, it was a bevildering stream of text flashing by at a speed it was hard to keep up with. I tried to contribute but felt that what I wrote was injected into a totally different discussion than the one I responded to and it was hard to answer questions when things moved so fast.

I also noticed a distinct disinclination to try to organize things or try to build some sort of traditional structure. I mentioned that I thought we should approach IFLA and see if the only truely international library organization could possibly help in this case, but the response was that IFLA is to slow and to bureaucratic. I have thought about this and realize that the culture of open source and the culture of IFLA are probably so different that it would be a bad fit for both. So scratch that idea for now. Maybe later if IFLA re-invents itself as an  organization oriented towards individual members and with a more tie-less structure.

Having initiated and led the Norwegian Library Association special interest group for ICT in libraries (SIKT) I have experience enough to know that starting a foundation or association for Koha is going to take a lot of work, and a more hierarchical structure than we have today. I also think that the users, i.e. the libraries, should be in the driving seat, not the developers and open source enthusiasts. Librarians are pretty good at organizing things, and Koha exists for the libraries and their users. It would probably be a good idea if some librarians in one geographical area, that actually can meet and discuss f2f, develop a proposal of alternatives (not more than two or three) for how a Koha foundation/association could be set up, and then present this to the Koha community for discussion. Then we must have a meeting, an IRL meeting, that establishes the entity in a way that is recognizable to librarians around the world as a point they can approach for information and help in all questions relating to Koha. Yesterday I felt that the discussion was too fragmented, the options not clear and the realities of our situation too complex to do justice on IRC.

Marshall Breeding have put forth a suggestion on how to organize Koha as foundation and even if I find his thougths interesting I cannot see that his proposal would work as an international entity the way I see  neccesary for the needs for my library. Maybe we need to develop regional structures that all contribute to an international structure? An European Koha association, an US, an Asian etc.? There seems to be so many questions that it will take a while to sort them out. And sorting out messes is what librarians do so well. So, why not let the professionals do that, and let developers and companies contribute and play an auxillary role? I totally agree with Marshall Breeding in that we need to have libraries as the driving force behind the development here, for the simple reason that libraries survive and stay where individual companies and developers come and go.

Filed under: IFLA, ILS, Koha, Library Associations 2.0, worries , foundation/association?, organizing

Global reach, local touch

I was reminded by the editor of the norwegian library journal “Bibliotekaren” (The librarian) (PDF) of the former IFLA-president Barbara J. Ford and her motto for her 2001 IFLA presidentship. It got me thinking about IFLA and what the organization could do for those who never will get funds or a positions that would allow them to travel to an IFLA conference (WLIC). A comment by Ian Smith from IFLA on my last post on IFLA 2.0 promted a lot of thought on how IFLA could use social networks to become more open to individual and virtual members.

First and foremost I wish that all librarians could easily get in touch with colleagues in other countries who work in simular libraries and with simular issues. It would be great to have a Facebook-like social forum for international librarians where people could discover all the differences and likeness that exists between librarians from different parts of the world.

You no longer need to travel to get to know people, have conversations and enjoy a professional and social relationship with librarians from around the world. Today social software can facilitate professional development online in a way that has been hitherto impossible. If IFLA taps into the potential of allowing virtual members and creates an arena for them to meet outside of WLIC, then they will have done the world of librarians the greatest favor ever:-) (Especially if virtual members pay a smaller fee, but don’t get any paper publications in the mail)

I also hope IFLA can initiate the development of professional resources with a practical focus that is written by “ordinary” working librarians and collaborations between librarians from different parts of the world. Maybe a wiki-like system or more like Google Documents where participation and contributing is open to all. Especially since a lot of potential virtual members comes from countries where there is a great need for practical professional development, but little resources to purchase professional publications. An open system for professional publications would be a great membership benefit. And I would bet that there is a lot to learn from the same librarians when it comes to solving problems and running libraries in adverse conditions. If this information was shared freely and in a dedicated network it would truly make IFLA an international members oriented organization.

Filed under: IFLA, Library 2.0, Library Associations 2.0, Web 2.0

IFLA 2.0

Reading Michael Stephens blogpost on ALA 2.0 I started thinking about library organizations and how web 2.0 can improve relations between members and organization and between organization and the world at large. I wrote a post on the Norwegian Library Association (NBF 2.0 - in norwegian) and having slept on the issue came to the conclusion that this was way to narrow thinking. The whole issue with web 2.0 and library 2.0 and hence Library Association 2.0 is that borders no longer count, national organizations are fine from both a social and professional viewpoint, but the real potential lies in the international possibilities that web 2.0 offers. Therefore the title of this blogpost: IFLA 2.0. IFLA, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions has so far, from where I stand, been an organization for the bigwigs on the national library scene. The director and president of the Norwegian library association, the directors of the lagest academic and public libraries and some people with special skills or papers to present. The membership fee is high and the benefit of becoming a member hard to see unless you have the budget to travel to the annual conferences around the world. This could now change. There is so much to be said for an internationalization of the library association work. I feel that I have more in common with Michael Stephens, Jenny Levine, Karen Schneider, Sukhdev Singh, Bonaria Biancu, and other Librarian 2.0s than I have with a majority of my fellow members of the Norwegian Library Association.

I would love to be a member of an organization that organized the people that looks at what makes libraries work and how they can develop on an international scale. These people are the ones I want to meet and discuss with, online in Second Life or World of Warcraft, on conferences like Internet Librarian and in any IM or chat session you can name. I have discussed with many interesting people on the Library 2.0 gang podcast and know from experience that I have a LOT to learn from others.

I know that a lot of the members of IFLA comes from developing countries and that the issues of web 2.0 and technology are completely outside the immediate problems and challenges that face the librarians of Nigeria, Peru or Vietnam. At the same time I think that some types of technology have the potential of solving some of the problems facing librarians in these and other developing countries. I would love to exchange experiences and understanding with librarians from all over the world. I know I would become a far more knowledgeable person from this, and I hope that some of my understanding will contribute to the knowledge of others. I think that what we now need is a truely international library organization for individual librarians using web 2.0 technology to exchange knowledge and fuel professional development. Either IFLA could take this ball and run with it, or this will expand and develop on its own just from the need of a critical mass of people. When you have that need it will drive the establishment and future of such an organization.

Filed under: IFLA, Librarian 2.0, Library Associations 2.0