At 07:17 AM 6/1/2013 -0700, BWS Johnson wrote:

>I know that a number of you will ... whatever ... Paul's a pain in the

neck, doesn't understand, does his own thing, but the bottom line is that
<http://opac.navalmarinearchive.com/>
is fully functional and is intrinsically Koha. It's (reasonably) secure
(without https) and meets the needs of our users and librarians. It runs
itself with minimal ( < 1 hour/week statistically ) intervention by IT
personnel.

    So what's the problem? I'm truly sorry, but I just don't understand why you're ranting here.

Mea culpa if I 'pirated' this thread to *stability* rather than *QA*, but they are closely intertwined.

>There are very few institutions that have "happiness" in the
form of unlimited budgets and unlimited IT departments. I'm personally
intrigued by the creativity of the Koha community, so try and follow
what's happening -- which is magnificent -- but doubt that your average
library has the same passion.

    I think most of the discussions we have are important, and I really love having the longer term steering and strategic types of conversations.

I hope (and genuinely believe) that we're not the only two participants here interested in "steering and strategic types of conversations" and also hope that my thoughts on stability (QA, maturity, reputation) might strike chords with others. It's not criticism, perhaps more my dream of the next "small step" for library systems. In my 50+ years of code development, I can honestly say that end-user credibility is very closely related to stability, and that within "stable" the differentiation between security and enhancement must be crystal clear (and separately optional from an upgrade pov.) "It works as promised" is a huge compliment. The old saying "if it doesn't work, use a bigger hammer; if that fails, rtfm" is dubious management.