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

Fri Sep 26 11:35:00 EDT 2014

I'd be curious which parts of 1.2 and 1.3 you feel this falls under.  I've
reviewed that I don't agree.  There are sections that could be taken too
broadly and I'd caution against too broad a use.

I'm not sure which jumping ahead you mean, but no, I don't think the
decisions I mentioned are jumping ahead, I think they're proper sequence
actually.  And it might be worth discussing potential conflicts of interest
as well.

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Ben Hyman <ben.hyman at bc.libraries.coop>
wrote:

> Hi Rogan,
>
> > 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.
> The latter is the intent.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Generally, sections 1.2(c) and 1.3 of our Rules do seem directly
> applicable: http://evergreen-ils.org/governance/ - that, and as I replied
> to Grace, if not for the EOB, then who exactly?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> Appreciate your risk analysis and agree we need to be thoughtful. But are
> we jumping ahead? And are the magnitude of complaints such that they merit
> or necessitate the creation of policy? I wonder if the sort of website faq
> revisions Grace suggested can't proceed in the nearer term - we'd be
> addressing the one issue that's been escalated to the EOB and improving the
> availability of information for community decision making.
>
> Cheers
> Ben
>
> > 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).
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/eg-oversight-board/attachments/20140926/65fcf179/attachment-0001.html>