[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Proposed change in Vendor Listing Policy

[Rogan Hamby]

Apologies in advance for this being long but like a board meeting that
wavers out in and out of discussion points I'd like to assess where we are
in this conversation.

Replying to Chris:  There wasn't a situation that prompted this.  That has
been part of what has confused me about responses I've gotten.  Since the
existing policy requires that page my proposal was a very simple let's link
to that page as a convenience to those shopping for services.  A pro-vendor
proposal.  When language began being used about policing vendors I got very
confused.  I don't see how linking directly to something the policy already
calls for is burdensome or intrusive and then it became clear that there
seems to be a set of expectations about the policy that's different than
the actual policy.

In fact, the comparison to the Koha policy has probably contributed to that
since the expectation was that we were borrowing from the Koha policy when
in fact that's not the policy.  That's a large part of why I say that while
we can look at the policies of other FLOSS projects we need to focus on
what our policy is so that we are all talking about the same thing.

The only vendors who it would be a burden for are those who aren't
fulfilling the existing policy.  So far we've heard from two vendors.
 Jason who doesn't want to add it on the basis of it's policing though I
think he may have been in the camp who didn't understand it was an existing
requirement and has the page himself.  And we heard from ESI who doesn't
have that page but is willing to add it and seems OK with it.  I don't want
to put words in either Jason's or Brad's mouths, that was just my reading
of their responses.

My inquiry about the value of reviewing complaints didn't stem from an
issue prompting this but because the discussion (due to the lack of shared
understanding of the policy) has now ranged far and wide into points as
divergent as not having a vendor page at all.  And that's a valid thought.
 I don't agree with it (at this point, though it's starting to become
tempting) but nonetheless valid.  I always said we should wait a year to
consider any complaints and I didn't think there was reason to revisit the
policy itself at this point but if we're getting this kind of community
feedback and indeed a lack of shared understanding of the policy than maybe
we do.  And if we reconsider the policy then looking at complaints is a
critical part of that.

I only know of two complaints in the last year.  One complaint was from a
vendor and one from a customer.

The customer issue was from a site that complained about the listing of a
vendor because of the vendor's performance.  That's a lengthly discussion
in it's own right that the board hasn't had yet about how to handle those
kinds of complaints and it was recent.  It was lessened in urgency by the
fact that the vendor's site is no longer present and didn't respond to
inquiries so they've been de-listed on that basis.

The other complaint was by a vendor who is listed currently and as of my
last understanding was complying with policy.  I was involved personally in
discussions with that vendor and at that time looked at their site and
haven't since and that was at the previous Hack-A-Way so pretty darn close
to a year ago.   I'm perfectly fine sharing those conversations I was
involved in though I wasn't involved in each one of them.  If the board
objects to sharing any of those they should say so.  Some may want to be
kept confidential and some involved the conference committee last year
which I'm not a part of.  However, all of that may be immaterial.  At that
time, at least everyone involved thought, they were in compliance.

Given that there appears to have been a lot of misunderstanding and belief
that a policy was in place that was not was voted on I think there's a more
substantial issue than my proposal, which is a distraction from the real
issue at this point, which is what is the existing policy supposed to be.
 Given that a number of folks, including the person who maintains the
vendor listing, have been working on the assumption that the policy is
something other than it is we need to handle that issue.

And yes, I think the complaints can be a part of that.




On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Sharp, Chris <csharp at georgialibraries.org>
wrote:

> Rogan,
>
> > We drew a lot on the Koha policy when we made it and while I think
> > looking at other communities is useful at this point we've had the
> > policy in place for a year and I think it's more important to look
> > internal to our own community and our experiences. Maybe it would be
> > useful to discuss the issues we've had and the complaints that have
> > been raised to the policy in the last year?
>
> Sure, that sounds great.  In my first email about this issue, I asked if
> there was a situation that prompted this request.  Would you be able to
> publicly share the issues and complaints you know about?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Sharp
> PINES System Administrator
> Georgia Public Library Service
> 1800 Century Place, Suite 150
> Atlanta, Georgia 30345
> (404) 235-7147
> csharp at georgialibraries.org
> http://pines.georgialibraries.org/
>



-- 

Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA
Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services,
York County Library System

“You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit
me.”
― C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-general/attachments/20140915/b42c7b56/attachment.htm>