[Eg-oversight-board] Granville complaint and vendor page

Wed Oct 8 15:03:08 EDT 2014

Hi everyone,

Happy October!

Following a few offline conversations seeking clarity, seems we have consensus that we can certainly improve the website FAQs to ensure that it best equips community members with the information they need to be successful in selecting a vendor, if that's they path they care to choose. I note from the minutes of the September meeting that Yamil was going to draft an expanded set of FAQ's (thanks Yamil!).
I have now drafted a received/thank you response, which I will send to Granville County by tomorrow.

Looking forward to our next meeting (on the 16th)
Cheers!
Ben

On Sep 26, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Rogan Hamby <rogan at roganhamby.com> wrote:

> I have to say that at this point I disagree with the idea that the board should respond with a message that the complaint is being considered.  A response that it has been received and we are considering how to proceed is fine with me.
> 
> It may seem like a small difference but an important one, especially legally.  I've been thinking about this a lot in part because it's a case where my heart and my head are in disagreement.  My heart is very pro-consumer and would love to make sure that customer that's had a bad experience is heard and justice is served.  My head looks at issues like liability and roles.  Is it this board's role to hear this grievance?  It's nowhere in our policies or mandate that I can tell.  
> 
> If we discuss a specific complaint without having a role associated with it all we're doing is opening ourselves up to libel.  We've talked about talking about it but we need to decide what might we do with complaints and if we decide that our role is and we have one then talk about this complaint with that in mind.
> 
> So, my questions:
> 
> 1) Is it our role to hear these grievances?  I don't have a strong opinion on this.  I can see both sides.  
> 
> 2) What are we willing to do after hearing said grievance?  My only strong opinion here is that we should stand apart from making an evaluation of the claim.  Are we willing to de-list a vendor after a certain number of complaints?  Put up a wiki page linking to complaints?  (OK, I don't like that one either.)  Publicly acknowledge that we received a complaint?  Put up a link next to their entry on the wiki with contact information for a reference?  If we do that I think we should be willing to do it for good or bad references without necessarily noting which is which so that we aren't seen as making that evaluation ourselves.  Whatever we do I think we should be cautious about liability.  Material contribution to libel (at least in the US) is an ugly grey area it could swing any way kind of thing and I'm perfectly happy having never given a deposition in one. 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Ben Hyman <ben.hyman at bc.libraries.coop> wrote:
> Thanks for this clarification and articulation Grace...
> 
> > Hi everyone,
> > I wanted to clarify my own thoughts about the letter from Granville County and the vendor listing page on the Evergreen web site.
> >
> > I think we have a few issues here that have converged and I urge us all to think about them critically and separately.  For me, the complaint from Granville regarding the vendor has made me think quite a lot about what the Board's role should be.  And while these issues may make us uncomfortable or cause us to have strong reactions, I still think the questions should be examined thoroughly and thoughtfully.
> >
> > The most obvious issue that the complaint letter brings up for me is the question of what responsibility the Board has to Evergreen community members as an outlet for complaints.  In this case I feel like we're focusing on the specific complaint and we don't want to get involved in "endorsing" one vendor over another.  However, I think our answer might be different should someone come to us with a complaint of harassment by a member of the community on the mailing list or on IRC.  So, the first issue I think we need to tackle is whether we are the organization where people *can* submit a complaint against a person or organization that they feel has seriously harmed them through the information or communication outlets provided on the Evergreen website.  I would argue that we are the organization that should respond in some fashion to those complaints.
> 
> Right, because if its not for the EOB to receive and respond, then who? I do have an action to respond (and will shortly) at least acknowledging that the Granville complaint was received / is being considered, as a start.
> >
> > Now the second question we need to answer is whether or not we are obligated to any specific *action* in regard to those complaints.  I think it's clear in the case of harassment that we are obligated by our community policy.  But what are our obligations outside of those cases?  I think we would have the obligation to take the complaint seriously, discuss the complaint internally, and communicate with the group/person who submitted the complaint.  I want people to know we, as a community, *do* care.
> 
> FWIW, I agree with all of this.
> 
> > But are we obligated to take action?  I honestly can't see how we could have in this case - there's no policy or precedent.  Should there be?  I don't know the right answer to that but I do know that we could (and I would argue should) use this opportunity to make our vendor page more useful to someone who is new to the community.
> 
> Looking at the vendor page through a "new" lens isn't a bad idea at all. I think we chatted around this last week and suspect we'll come back to it.
> >
> > It's easy for us, people entrenched in the community, to say, "Just email the list!", "Just ask a question in IRC!", or "Do your research!"  But maybe we could meet these folks halfway.  A list of questions to ask potential vendors would be a handy (and easy) thing to provide.  I also wouldn't object to stronger statements on our vendor page ensuring that people understand that no one has vetted these vendors and to be forthright about the fact that the only requirement for being listed is to send in a submission and link to the community site.
> >
> > I want to be sure we're not being insensitive to the needs of those exploring Evergreen - I want them to experience what a great, welcoming community this is firsthand.  And while we can never eliminate the possibility of someone having a bad experience we should talk about what we can do to mitigate it.
> >
> > Thanks for reading and apologies for the tome.  :)
> 
> Nicely put, no apologies needed from my perspective. I've been impressed with the demonstrable "think" we've put into this. We do care! The ideas you've jotted down here seem reasonable. Interested to hear from folks that see flags (or not).
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Ben Hyman
> Executive Director | BC Libraries Cooperative
> ben.hyman at bc.libraries.coop | 1.855.383.5761 ext 1001 | cell: 250.889.2738
> bc.libraries.coop | Twitter: @BCLibrariesCoop
> >
> > Grace
> >
> > --
> > Grace Dunbar, Vice President
> > Equinox Software, Inc.  -  The Open Source Experts
> > gdunbar at esilibrary.com
> > 1-877-OPEN-ILS    www.esilibrary.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > eg-oversight-board mailing list
> > eg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.org
> > http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eg-oversight-board mailing list
> eg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
> 

Ben Hyman 
Executive Director | BC Libraries Cooperative
ben.hyman at bc.libraries.coop | 1.855.383.5761 ext 1001 | cell: 250.889.2738
bc.libraries.coop | Twitter: @BCLibrariesCoop

You have received this e-mail message from the BC Libraries Cooperative. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any other distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at 1-855-383-5761 and reply to the sender via e-mail, confirming deletion of the original e-mail and any attachment(s).