Fixing the co-op forum

The DG co-op forum was closed last week Wednesday.

Here is the initial thread discussing the closing: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/921605/#new
Further complaints or comments on this action by admin should please be directed to the above thread.

There seem to have been 2 separate issues with the co-ops: people "fronting" a co-op for a vendor to get around the "no vendors" rule, and too many Dmails and spillage into other areas of DG when co-ops go bad. Dave has verified (on the other thread) that these were indeed the major problems leading to the closing of the forum.

In this post http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/p.php?pid=5769863, Dave said he would be willing to reconsider the decision if we could find a solution to those 2 problems.

That's what this thread is for. Please, constructive suggestions or feedback only! This is not the place for negativity or flaring tempers. If we can self-police this thread to keep it positive, Dave may have hope that we can find a way of similarly self-policing when tempers flare due to co-op problems.

There's another thread for discussing alternatives to the co-op forum, in case we can't figure out a "fix." http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/921953/#new Let's try to keep these discussions as focused as possible, to make it easier for admin and everybody else to follow.

Thanks, everybody!

oh man-2 sperate ones, now I am gonna have to go, and copy my post-geez Jill-all the extra work;)

I am wondering if a couple of Co-op forum moderators would work-people that handle any outward bickering and any inkling of the shilling-then those 2 could ask admin to check into it instead of a bizillion dmails...also those same people can alert admin if very unsuccessful co-ops or ones where there have been X amount of negative feedback that those people are banned from doing them anymore??

I think haveing these as successful co-op organizers would work-I am sure we wouldn't need to be paid, just doing our part to keep it in check

well, since the first thread was titled "alternatives" I thought we needed a new thread for this topic...

I'm just glad Dave is willing to reconsider, IFF we can find some workable answers.

I also think that when peeps post ideas, they need to be well thought out, cognitive alternatives with things worked out. That is what you would do when proposing an idea to a boss, so why not use the same professional manner here??

You will have to bear with my spelling today-my cat seems to think my keyboard is her new bed....

Copied over here from the other thread...

Well, I just spent quite a while reading the "gripe" thread... and also Dave's comments. Lots of good points made on both ends of the spectrum. Lot's of hurtful, and unnecessary comments, but I found it constructive none the less if for no other reason except to vent and roar about some people's disappointment. Dave seemed very professional to respond to those "ugly" comments in a reasonable manner.

I've only entered into one coop, and was very happy with the way it was run... I was looking forward to future coops but understood that I would do so at my own risk. Which brought up questions I had as to what "at my own risk" entailed. Now I know, after reading the other thread.

It seems that the "vendor" coops were the problem. And, policing the coops to catch the "vendor" at advertising themselves is a problem for Admin. I can see how that would be a problem... I don't know how Admin would know, or even have a way of finding out, who the coop was being run by, or who was behind it. That would discourage me, as well, from wanting to continue the coops threads.

The only suggestion I can muster here is that if they reconsider keeping the coops is that each and every member should pick coops run by people they've dealt with before, ones they know well, and have had enough dealings with in the past to feel safe with that person. Perhaps even adding a "rating" to those members who run the coops "about" page so others can rest assured or stay away according to their rating. I wouldn't buy anything from and Ebay seller without checking their rating either.
I like the suggestion of a "volunteer" committee of DG members to police the coops. Perhaps an application form can be submitted to those committee members from prospective coop administrators. Perhaps they can be scrutinized before hand, and approved or unapproved prior to applying for a coop thread. Perhaps a committee member can start the thread themselves... then let the person take it from there, gather their orders, and complete the coop in a designated time frame... if all goes well, the committee member won't have to do anything else but monitor the thread. If a problem arises... the committee member could cancel the thread, and the coop is finished before it closes.

Like I said... I'm not a seasoned coop participant... so, this is just some ideas I've gathered from reading other's posts.

thanks:)

I'd like to also post my suggestion on this thread. Why not turn the policing, vetting and grievance settling of co-ops over to a volunteer membership committee consisting of long term paid subscribers and experienced co-op hosts? The committee members could vary at times according to some scheme. A thread for concerns could be posted in the co-op forum for people to air grievences or, if they prefer it to be for committee eyes only, a mail box could be assigned.

I'm sure that there would be volunteers. Many people who can't deal with the physical aspects of co-ops may well be willing to devote computer time. If anyone would want to volunteer, maybe they could post here.

I also agree that the members have to agree on some criteria for eligibilty standards to be permitted to host a co-op. This should eliminate many problems.

Also, to keep things from getting out of hand rules should be in place to delete defamatory and intimidating posts. People who insist on placing such posts should be prevented from participating in co-ops. I was astounded at the level of rude and nasty posts in a recent co-op.

There are great minds and wonderful spirits in this community. Let's see everyone join in here to make the best co-op venue possible!

I also think that the committe of volunteers would head off problems at the start for the most part and alleviate admin from all the unnessary dmails.

Yes requirements to host, yes a way to block an unsuccessful host from hosting agin, yes a way to deal with grievances and yes a way to delete negative posts.

Someone suggested earlier that we limit coop hostesses to those that have been paying members at least 2 years. While that would kick me out for a few more months, I think that's a good idea.
I also think it would be a good idea to form a kind of "coop" committee. Say 4 or 6 of the most fair and rational people on DG. Requirements would be to have been a member in good standing for a certain number of years. Say 4? And the rest of us can nominate and/or vote for people to be on the committee.
That committee could keep an eye on the coops, and step in if it got out of hand. Or we could go an extra mile and they would have to "approve" any new coop and any new coop hostess? The members who have been around a long time, have more of a grasp on vendors who might be taking advantage of the sitation.

If we form a committee, I think the first nominee should be critter.

Although the current feedback system could be used, I do see how it might be useful to have a separate feedback for co-op hosts as a quick way to find the appropriate information.

Canceling a co-op in progress is a problem if payments have already been made and orders placed with the vendor. But sometimes you just get a sense that a co-op is in trouble long before that... and there may be opportunities to step in and offer assistance or guidance. A committee to help with self-policing might be useful... thinking how to go about it in order to steer problems to the committee rather than to admin...

If the committee seems like a good idea, perhaps a separate closed forum could be created for committee members, so problems can be discussed among them and solutions hashed out in private. The DG writers have a forum like this, and I think one was created when the national RU idea (now sidelined, so let's not get into that here) was being worked on.

Steering problems to the committee might be a combination of adding a button at the top of the co-op forum (like the "contact us" link but perhaps resulting in a blast Dmail to committee members, details of which could then be discussed on the forum) and having admin re-direct relevant Dmail to the committee (like when I use the "contact admin" button for an article editing concern, and it gets forwarded to Terry's inbox.).

I think we might be on the right track. While I would be more than happy to participate in that commitee and help in every and any way I can, if there are to be guidelines in place for the # of years in place B4 that would be possible I would understand. I would also understand if new rules would be set in place about the # of years here B4 hosting a co-op-if it is 2 I would be bummed as I would have almost another year to go, but if that is what it would keep to keep them afloat and organized, then so be it.

Critter hasn't actually ever run a co-op, just tried to help out a bit from time to time... and I won't get to the 4 year mark with my subscription until this January. (I signed up as a member to use Watchdog earlier; thus the 2003 date on my info page.)

:-)

>>perhaps a separate closed forum could be created for committee members,

a site i used to Moderate on had a forum like this for us. password protected for the group only, in this case, Co-Op committee

things could be hashed out 'behind closed doors', possibly troubles could be quickly brought to their attention and quickly dealt with.

LOL Jill, like you have any free time!! ;-)

I do think 4 yrs might be 'stretching' it... as there are many great, Co-Op knowledgeable folks with a lot less time than that. I think 2 yrs would be a good starting point... that was mentioned by someone in the earlier thread.

Perhaps "approved" coop hosts with a certain rating could get a logo under their name like the ADMIN one so we'd know right off the bat that it's a good host to deal with... maybe a colored star or something telling us how many successful coops they've completed.... like 1-5 successful coop hosts get a yellow star, 6-10 get a blue star... and so on. Just a quick reference without jumping through hoops to read all the feedback.

Ok then we can lower it to 3 years critter! :-) You are always the voice of reason and I think you would be perfect for starters! I have watched you on several ocasions defuse a situation. And I think that's what we need on a comittee. Someone who is calm, rational, and can see all sides before making decisions.

Fairy, I will also miss running coops if we do the 2 year thing, but I was thinking some others might feel more comfortable with more long term members. And like you, if that's what it takes to keep coops, I am willing to wait.

well, bj's suggestion of the "star" rating system would work too, instead of the '2 yr' thing.

Bj, I like that idea! I wonder if it could easily be done? And the committee would be the ones who mark a coop successful?

We still need to figure a way to handle the troublemakers. I guess the committee could ban them from coops for a period of time if they wouldn't listen to reason?

"There seem to have been 2 separate issues with the co-ops: people "fronting" a co-op for a vendor to get around the "no vendors" rule, and too many Dmails and spillage into other areas of DG when co-ops go bad. Dave has verified (on the other thread) that these were indeed the major problems leading to the closing of the forum"


My thoughts are to have the co-op organizer become pre-approved by administrators to be eligible to host a specific product (fall bulbs, bird feeders, etc) through a specific company or vendor on a needed by need basis only. Pre eligible organizers could have rules set on them as to how many co-ops could be done within a set about of time (ex: 18 months) for each type of product and should have a subscriber history of say 3 years. That should give a stable history to nearly eliminate the chance of a hidden vendor potentially making a bi-yearly attempt at profit. Maybe DG could even "cash in" by charging a small percentage...which would actually make DG a vendor of sort.

Although I have been subscribed for only 3 or 4 years, I am currently participating in my first co-op. One of the reasons I visit DG 6 of 7 days a week is to check my favorite forums....which includes to Co-op Forum. Most DG forums are for paid supporters already. Why not slightly increase the membership fee for those who what to be eligible for participation in potential co-ops? I'd be willing pay 3 to 5 bucks more a year to have that option....and sign off a "at your own risk" statement to do so.

My guess is that the actual Host/Hostess of a co-op is at more risk of loss than the participants. As far as the DMails....don't completely understand....does DG get charged for excess storage or bandwidth or something? Could a paid co-op forum overcome that? Spillage of gone bad deals, I agree have no place within the forums....just like some other posts are mysteriously deleted, they should be as well. The feed-back system should be used for any problems just like the trading and postage only offerings as to allow one rebuttal and a chance to do it better the next time.

I hate to see the Co-ops be discontinued. Many folks have be able to purchase treasures at a great price and hosts/hostesses have been so wonderful in taking the time and risks involved in holding one as a service to DG subscribers.

Hoping for a solution to keep everyone happy,

Linda

I am agreeing with all of these ideas.. they are along what I was thinking we need. People who just moderate the Coop Forum.

As with all new commitees, they have to start somewhere with someone. Fairy, I think you would be excellent to serve on a committee. I think the people we want will be the ones who respond on this and the 'alternatives' thread.

Since ideas are not my forte...I will now bow out! :)

I still think a coop could be canceled before it closes, before anyone has paid any money... no one should be paying for their order until it is finished anyway, right? If a coop has to be canceled, that's not a successful coop... and should not get a rating for it.

I do not like the idea of paying more for the privilege of participating in a Co-Op

we are already paying for the privilege of using the "members only" forums.

AND -- it was stated that money was not an issue in the closing of the forum.

I also don't like the idea of paying more, however I dislike the discontinuation of the co-ops even more.

Paying a little more should still allow a better price than retail.

This message was edited Nov 9, 2008 10:56 AM

BUT -- those folks who are the problem could pay that higher price for their right to be in or host a co-op. so i do not think that would solve that problem.

the committee option i feel is a good one, where they would even approve of the host/hostess whether the "star" rating is involved or not... but that also is a good idea.

I would pay a couple dollars more to Admin to participate in a coop... if it meant the kind of savings we get in them to acquire the kind of plants I've seen going on the coops... yes, I would still be saving a lot of money if I had to pay a little to participate.

Although I think it would be good to have some kind of rating for hosts, I dont think an "approved host" label would be work next to peoples names because it implies that DG has approved them and might therefore make them liable.

My thought for the moment is maybe to have an " I accept " button for participants of co-ops.

There could be things listed such as...

1. I understand and agree that I enter into this co-op at solely my own risk.
2. I might lose all or some of my money, receive wrong items, or dead plants.
3. I understand and agree that I will not hold DG responsible for any part of this co-op.
4. If anything happens that I dont like in this co-op, I will not complain to or ask for any type of resolution from DG.
5. If I end up haveing any issues with this co-op, the hosts or the product, I will handle it with maturity and respect through private d-mail.

etc. etc. I am sure there would be much more and better ways to write it, but I need to go finish painting. Just wanted to jot down the idea to knock around.

Good idea Chris... that would leave DG out of any issues that arrise... We're all used to the "I accept the policies" button from almost everywhere we go on the internet.

I don't think there's any amount of money that would convince admin to continue handling the issues of co-ops as the forum (until recently) stands. And I'm quite sure they don't want to get back in the process of approving co-op hosts (that was part of the issue the first time the forum was closed), but appointing a committee (hopefully a rotating responsibility) might be feasible. Committee members should be aware that they'll potentially be in for the same kind of verbal abuse that admin was probably subjected to by irate hosts/participants.

BJ, you're right that co-ops could be canceled in an early stage (by committee decision?), but we'd have to figure out something for co-ops that were into the ordering/delivery phase and found themselves in trouble... otherwise, canceled co-ops could be a big vendor headache, and we want to keep vendors happy and willing to participate in DG co-ops.

The idea of a logo for successful co-op hosts is one that I like -- and like the "uber" rating, it's a way to acknowledge their contributions to the community. I don't want to discourage new hosts, though, so we'd need to watch that. New hosts could be encouraged to start out with a smaller, easier co-op (for example, I was planning to do a limited seed co-op for my first hosting attempt, figuring that if I got bogged down at least seeds weren't perishable like plants).

i volunteer to help in any way!!! been here since the start!!!

Those of you who have been here the longest may have to figure ways to deal with the vendor problem. The ones I've dealt with haven't been a problem and I called them all to set the Coop up. So I'm not sure which vendors everyone is talking about.

I will also volunteer to help in any Dori, though I don't have the years alot of you have. But I do think long term members should be the ones on the Coop comittee.

I understand the need to stop the "vendor fronted" co-op as they are run now... in the co op section where someone sets it up and the participants call the vendor directly to order the product. I must admit I recognized these a violation of the policy but have participated at least twice because the product/price just could not be passed up. I think there is some confusion though. I feel some of these can still fit under a co-op. They have a hostess who researched a product and found a vendor willing to give a good price break and just made the process easier by offering direct sales and frequently, free shipping. Having the hostess available to contact the vendor, answer questions about the product and the extended period for ordering .. the 'community' which develops through the ordering and discussion over use of the product in the following thread is very important and encourages the freindship bonds of Daves Garden. I learn a lot, really enjoy participating in these and feel we need to find a way to incorporate these into DG co-ops even if they have to pay a fee for vendor direct shipping.

The questions and disscussion on the items being bought and used are very important. I know about the classifieds... they do not serve this purpose. I buy from there also.

Tammie

darn, wasn't finished typing on the other one ,so copying to here.

Glad to see this post, I think between all of us , maybe we can get some resolution. I see some good and still some poblems. Not to be argumentive, but if I see this problems, Dave may too and so, maybe we cna find ways to fine tune the possible problems. So gonan play a bit of devils advocate here. Please don't through me in the compost pile, but lets find a workign solution for everybody.


The problems I see arising are goign to be between the classified and the co-op if they unite.

Critter wrote: I wonder how it would work out to allow the classified ads to be threads rather than single posts? Then we right back to it being the same format as the co-ops.

And I see all of a sudden the small folks that can't buy in bulk , the small gardeners who trying to get ahead a tiny bit, suddenly having there ads lost in the swamp of tons of co-op threads. Which wouldn't be fair to them. They need their space to sell freely too. I been thinking on and of all night, I use the classified myself and enjoy shopping on it, no hassles, no bickering, just some pleasant shopping experiences.

So that only leaves a seperate co-op thread. Soem folks have brought upsome good points. Like Dave said he and his admid, don't like havign to police either and I fully undertsna dwher ehe comign from. Who here would want to be on a monitoring committee and have to tell your garden buddy that ya been chattign with for years , that sorry, your being banned.

I see the same situation happening, folks will be running behidn the threads saying bad things an drude things about those on the committee and making trouble for them through the forums. If you think about it that way, you cna see what Dave and the mods have been dealing with.

Now it was aked for a discussion before the market place went up, there were thread after thread and with that discusion it was formed and though some folks may notlike the prices or the merchandise offered it was a group effort and I have foudn it to be a smooth running operation as far as handling sales and such. You either buy or don't simple as that and the vendors selling have worked very hard to keep it anice and peaceful operation. I think vendors and buyers have co-ensited pretty well, so maybe

a solution would be for folks to start listing things that they woudl like to see done for the co-op forums. Like somebody said maybe third times a charm.

We have the enter at yoru own risk, but those words seem to either not be understood or read by some folks on the co-op as far as handling complaints are. The co-ops bring all kinds of peope, from all directions of life and places. Like I told somebody else "We a million and some different personalities all connecte d by one heartless and voiceless machine. All we cna hope is that those posts can hav eopen minds an dhearts and not take what they read as somethign against them, but that it just the best they cna do with a machine at the helm."

Things I would like to see on the new co-op forum.

1. A more detailed explaination of what you as a buyer are going into. Maybe that you before you are permitted on the co-ops you have to read and sign a disclousrue of some kind, that you are fully aware that Dg is not responisble if you participate and that Dg will not under any circomstances act as a mediator between you and the host/hostesses for things like delayed shipping, not the quality of plants yuou think you should have, missingstuff ect... he shouldn't bothered with petty stuff. That you are purchasing sight unseen with a no guarentee and no refund or anything like that. In bold so they can't come back and say I didn't know. and a note that sendign dmails to admid other than the srious forementione dcomplaints wilnot be answered or addressed.

I think this might help with some of the newbies just jumping in co-ops and not understandign them and then thinkign they getting burned and complaining.

That the only way that Dave would get involved would be if somebody did a coop collecte d all the money and never shipped anythign or did any kind of refunds. Then that fraud.

Also that buyers, in that disclaimer would agree that if they had a problems of missing stuff or refund that would be th eonly thing they could complain in a dmail to the host about. Plant quality you have alrady have signed that you wil not complain about in the disclaimer agreement.

That would help hosts to answer those only with serious complaints instead of some of the hatefull dmail.

The buyer would also disclaim to only keep dmails between themselves and the buyer. This hanging dirty laundry on the threads is terrile and embrrasing not onyl to the host who may be tryign to corectproblems , but embarrassing for all those other buyers to see and read. Discrection is the word.

And that if they do not follow the disclaimer they signed that they will be banned from future participation in the coops and that if they are foudn to be complaining behidn the scenes that there wil be no discussion and they wil be banned form the main Dg for a certain length of time acceptable to a vote from members for all.

Now for the hosts and hostesses. There some good rule sin place and again maybe before a host is allowed to do their first co-op they too have to sign a dsiclaimer that they will follow a set of rules.

They will have one order thread, one chat thread and one shipping thread. Liek now. That has made goign through the co-ops easier.

They agree to not do whatevr this shrill thing is and that if it is foudn out by admid that they will have all coop hosting and buyign privaleges revoked and again if they complain behidn the scenes about being banned that they loose regular Dg privaleges for a certain length of time.

I see posts about problems with shrill which I had myself to find out what th e word was and if I didn't know it their may be other folks who will be hostign that dont either and somaybe finer tuning of no accepting gifts or gratuatees or benefits to host the co-op. And that all members participating on the co-ops that if they find this out, is goign on with a certain co-op that they report it to admid , this is a part of self -policing if we are able to getthe co-ops back and dont want tolose them cuz I know if there is a third there sure wont be a fourth for discussion at all.



Now the vendors. We have alot of dg members that are vendors. I am sure alot of them woudl lile to get in on the co-ops as vendors. These little guys can't compete with the big businesse son the outside , but have quality products just the same. I would liek to see maybe more folks hostign maybe smaller co-ops with not as many participants and people to allow them to be able to jump in too.

For example. Vendor x has only 20 plants of hostas. The big vendor has 60 including the ones vendor x has. Now I know we all tryign to send the cheapest amoutn of money, but just because these folks may be a dollar more they are never asked. Instead of everybody always supportign the big band vendors, how about supporting some of our small vendors so they can grow and eventuially compete like the big guys.

I see where some folks are upset because a host uses the same vendor all the time. I have no problem with that. Usually that is the safest and problem free co-ops to be on. Everybody knows th evendor, know sthe host and knows what to expect. The host takes on alot of responsibilty and I think as long as they feel good an docmfortable and their buyers are comfotable with buyign formthat vendor that folks shouldn't complain about that part. I would rather buy froma trie dna dtrue vendor and if I have good experience ya I want the same thign again since it is a buyer beware. Good quality and a good run co-op shoudl not penalize hosts or vendors just becaus e they asked to do them several times.

Maybe to help protect Dave with his disclaimer stuff, it should be that all vendors have to at least register with Daves especially sicne comments go inthe watchdog area. Just another thought here.

All in all since the last time the co-op closed, I think things have been alot better with people s attitudes at least out in the open, now if we manage to get them back, I would hope that folks would carry that over into the private parts too.

There are all kinds cooop forums out there on the web and I have to see one that has run as long or as successful as the one here at Daves. it is becaus eof the restraints and his carign about all concerne d that it has worked so well on the front for as long as it has.

Seems we have all kind sof thread going sicne I started tryign to type this one. Maybe we just need a big discussion thread liek for the market place. Listing only some posible rule syou would liek to see for the co-ops and no chit chat , keep that here, and then maybe Dave can read through it pul the good point sthat would work for him and take a big vote on it lile last time.


edited cuz i was typign on two places and once and got confused. LOL



This message was edited Nov 9, 2008 11:24 AM

i think my co-ops with Bleek were considered in the "vendor" co-ops
I never meant them to cause any problems-just wanted great plants at great prices
and to help other gardeners get plants that they couldn't afford at regular prices!
Im really sorry if these co-ops caused any of the problems. Myself i thought they
went well and didnt see them as a problem!! We just have many Vendors that are members here
now.

anyway i will do whatever i can to help get co-ops back here and running correctly!!!

I don't know who the nefarious vendors and shills were, or anything really about that that part. I do know that some of the same vendors are used a lot, presumably because they are willing to work with us. If the vendor is a DG member, is that the problem? Can someone explain that part for me please?

Good morning; what an emotional day it was yesterday here. I am so relieved that Dave is giving us the opportunity to fix this and not just make it a done deal, which is easiest from him.

I've run several co-ops, one with a vendor; it wasn't my intention when it started; I expected to do all the counting, packing and shipping, but when the chosen vendor offered to do all that...well...how could I refuse? I found, however, that I did not like the control over the product and the inability to answer questions and deal with problems, because there were many following delivery. Part of it was because there was a "friendship" factor in the relationship, and it has to be all business.

1. Fairy, I think the committee of volunteers to police the forum is an excellent suggestion, along with the private forum for that committee to discuss issues. Committee purposes:
--The committee might maintain a sticky regarding issues it has dealt with, because it is important for all of us to know what it takes to keep things running smoothly.
-- Perhaps the committee could also maintain a sticky with a running co-op history. We could take it back since the return of the co-ops in March 2006, I imagine, without a lot of trouble. That history could include host/team members, number of participants, vendor, offering, etc.
--Perhaps a committee member could be assigned as an advisor/mentor to each co-op, being members who have hosted or been part of a successful co-op team. A list of members willing to do that, not on the committee could also be an option, sharing the burden, and hosts could select an advisor rather than be assigned on.

2. A major factor in co-op issues is that people do not read to learn what cooperative buying means. Perhaps one approach to becoming a co-op participant is a one time signing of a disclaimer reiterating the personal risk and guidelines for good co-ops.

3. It is completely possible to see when a co-op is going the wrong way from the beginning if one is looking with clear eyes, not ones clouded by the desire for wonderful, new plants. Without naming which, I've been asked by members on occasion to speak to a host and get them to back off or get smaller, or even start over. It didn't work, but "we" tried. Running a popular co-op is a heady experience - at least at the ordering excitement stage. It's so easy to get carried away when participants ask, "Oh, paws, couldn't you just add..." and it's 10 or 12 people asking different things. First hand experience on that, too, with my first co-op (a half dozen colors of glads, maybe 600 bulbs, 10 participants was my goal and it became 37 participants and 20 different colors of glads and lilies...4300 bulbs). When co-ops get out of hand because the host cannot say "no" and be firm (I'm known for my "rules"), then particpants are as responsible as the host, imho. Our society likes to have someone to blame when things don't work out, and it co-ops, everyone involved shares all the responsibilities.

4. The committee might use all the input on various threads about how to host a co-op to create a clearcut guide for new hosts. Perhaps a questionaire to help a potential host truly consider whether he/she can manage a co-op. There are many facets to it. A reference file might be established that anyone can access.

5. Perhaps those who have run successful co-ops could distill their system down for sharing and those documents could be in the reference file. The committee might help with that, as writing isn't everyone's gig.

6. I think the minimum time for a co-op host to host is a good idea. I think 2 years is good. I noticed that a couple of the folks with the most vehement posts have not been members for even a year.

7. Perhaps the committee could come up with a basic "first post" disclaimer statement for every host to put at the top of order threads that is always the same so there is no confusion. I found that some hosts' writing was so confusing, I could not understand what they were trying to communicate. That made a co-op a no-go for me. If one doesn't understand what one is buying, why buy?

8. The spillage over to other threads is a problem, because it's impossible to track everyone's actions, however, if co-ops are established to keep the issues to a minimum, and deal with them directly in the co-op forum, that should remove the spillage, yes?

9. I think we need a list of members who don't pay for all hosts to access; perhaps it would be noted in co-op history.

That's all this morning. I imagine there are several posts since I started writing this one.
:-)

4paws you need to be on that committee too!!!!

Now that I read the dozen posts before mine, I would like to add:

1. Yes, I believe we should be supporting our little vendor members in some way better than we are in co-ops. First we need to get the co-ops back, but that idea is simmering now...

2. What makes a "long term" member better able to manage a co-op? Long term and competent/organized/responsible are not the same. Perhaps a member with longevity could team up with the newer member/host.

Anything I can do to help, I will.... I think co-ops are something that we are looking to return to more and more in this economy (along with bartering, another community based, team- resource).

I like the partner/mentor idea for co-op hosts. A lot of problems I've seen with co-ops might have been prevented by having a co-host, whether to share the organizational load or to step up to answer questions and post updates if, for example, the host has a temporary problem with internet access.

As long as we meet in the mornings when I have a brain, I'd help in any way possible, Cat.

Notmartha, that's the goal of all us hosts - to help everyone out - it sure isn't for any personal gain, or at least, I haven't seen any above and beyond what any other participant gets (I've always ended up short, actually). I do get a kick out of being a "medium" for all the happiness that happens throughout the co-op, from the excitement of anticipating the co-op opening, all the way to garden glory. :-)