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

[Grace Dunbar]

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.

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.  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.

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.  :)

Grace

-- 
Grace Dunbar, Vice President
Equinox Software, Inc.  -  The Open Source Experts
gdunbar at esilibrary.com
1-877-OPEN-ILS    www.esilibrary.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/eg-oversight-board/attachments/20140925/037c7ba8/attachment.html>