Fixing the co-op forum

Wow look at these great minds and hearts at work!!!!!

If she is willing, I too nominate Critter.

For initial commitee members, consider "Grandfathering" any shorter term members who have demonstrated the organization of successful responsible co-ops.

The idea of assigning a "Mentor" to new co-op organizers is great step to insure success.

A disclaimer is to indemnify DG is a very good idea.

I think only committee members should be allowed to bring a consensus of concern to the DG admin.

Keep working folks!!!!!

oh...another aspect I forgot...
a back-up plan for the delivery/shipment part, ie. a stand-in for the host if something should have to disallow her from completing the delivery/shipping portion. Sometimes it's months between order and delivery and anything could happen.

4 Paws. Soem tried to do that. Some of the hosts were glad for the help and support and others took the extended hand of friendship as stepping on their toes and were not nice to the person helping.

There been alot of good coops with first tiem people running them. Pullign the easiest one I know the seed co-op. That went slick with a first timer at the helm and i too was lookign forward for the second one.

You do bring up a good point though. When Dave did the discussion threads for th emarketplace, he made sevral topic headings. al the differnt point swere discussed over sevral threds , but each involved that particular issue.

Maybe Dave woudl do the same thign and make threads like.

What you think buyer discalaimer and rule sshould be... what you think host rules should be.... what you think vendor rules should be... what you think the format shoudl be.

Esepcially the last one, liek you say , some co-ops the rule sare very direct and eay to read and some are not. Maybe takign expamples from the well run-easy for all customer perspective coudl go into a standard format so there is no confusion.

Liek how some say. you must be a member of Dg for so long. you must do this and this and have astandard form for all the co-op listings. Best way I can thinkto describe it is kind alike a co-op listing application form. A form acceptable through vote is made. Anybody wantign to do a co-op instead of typign what they want, go to top of coop section and copies the coop standard hostign form and fills it in. and then posts it. they just take there information and put it next to the appropiate section on the coo-op host form. That way everybody on one page, no misundrstandings and the best ideas of how to set the first pages up from all the hosts will be under one way and section.

Thinking again. Cuz we need all kind sof ideas and back up idea for Dave to decide what he woudl liek or not like. It not gonna be a seasy to get it back this time as last. To even recondier after we were told no more show show much the folks and the site mean to him.

Thinking on the committe part, f that is a way Dave would consider going, I see this problems. Co-ops move fast. All aspects from ordering to chit chatting threads especially. The committee people like Dave and the mods have real life commitments too. I don't see hwo the threads could be police d at all times.

Maybe if there is some sort of committee or if folks start seeign somethign going bad . A comittiee member could post on the thread to STOP Postign This thread has been temporily halted. Attention all buyers, please read your disclaimers. In bold color like red. or somethign that would be the key words for anybody else reading the threds to not make anymore posts and that the thread has been stopped by a committiee member until the situation can be discussed to stop some of the continued flaming and as a warning that this thread is gettign tot he danger point of havignthe co-ops closed permantely. Might help a littl ebit

Good idea..someone outside keeping an eye on things, and posting a "gentle reminder" of manners and agreements.

Gotta get outside now, before it starts raining again. :-)

I think that's part of the way a committee would/could operate, to provide somebody to sign on with each co-op to help out the organizer and to keep an eye on the tone of things. Ideally, a co-op's "voice of reason" person would not themselves be a participant... I know in co-ops where I've tried to help, it's sometimes hard to say, "oh no we really shouldn't add any more varieties at this point" when there's another variety that excites my own garden-greed.

Everybody on the committee could not possibly keep up with each co-op... not and have any time left in their day! :-) It makes sense to spread that sort of responsibility around, I think. But it might still be useful to be able to discuss solutions for co-ops in trouble in a co-op committee-only forum.

Yes, so that it's not one person responsible for making what could be an unpopular decision.
Still not outside...lol

Hey y'all. I'm getting eye strain on my already failing 40 year old eyes. Would you mind putting a "We Fixed It!" Thread at the top of the Co-ops Forum when you work it all out for the civilians here?
I"ve seen & read that all my favorite co-op organizers are involved with the process and great ideas (star system for successful co-ops based on anonymous feedback of past co-ops to the new committee) are being tossed around and considered, so I think the plan is in good hands. I'll just muddy the water. You know, "Too many cooks" and all.
So as long as you're OK with it, I'm going to tune out and wait for your final plan.

This message was edited Nov 9, 2008 3:22 PM

The committee could keep a co-op schedule and set what dates co-ops can start to ensure that commitee members are available to oversee them.

Yes, the committee will get some hate mail, but anyone who has ever dealt with the public knows that goes with the territory.

A good rule might be no discussion of co-ops in any other forum except maybe a heads up to alert members of a new co-op or of one that want to close but still needs a few buyers.

Committee membership should rotate or have "terms" as well as alternates in the event of inability to serve.

Co-op bylaws should not be set in stone, rather evolve as the marketplace changes. Modifications should be the privlege of the committee perhaps with a question thread to the buyers.

WOw-I take a break and look at all the great ideas!!!

If it is decided that I can not run any more because I have only been here a little over a year, I am fine with that. If it is decided I could be a mentor, then GREAT....

I LOVE the mentor idea, the moderator for the co-op, the rating under the names, the committee, the sharing of documents, the disclaimer-I think they are all great ideas and are very much headed in the right direction. I am happy to help write the disclaimer, share documents, methods that work (which could be part of the sticky-things that went really right in a co-op-maybe suggestions for new hosts), be a moderator, be on the commitee, whatever I can do to help:)

I do have to say one thing-I agree with what someone said (can't find it now) that your length of time on DG does not deem you acceptable to run a co-op-you should be able to show your plan of action-just like you would with a job-you could be a 5 year memeber and be one of the most disorganized peeps on the planet....so I think submitting an action plan as a host is a great idea.

Thanks Star for playing Devils Advocate-that is waht we need to have the clear concise ideas that I think Dave is looking for-Critter, do you think you can summarize our odeas in the top post to make it easier for him to find as well as contigency plans??

I knew we could acheive this level of brainstorming as soon as we moved aways form the "nasty" thread-we need positivity here folks, which is what we are doing!! Makes me proud!!!

I'd like to jump in, if you all don't mind. I've participated in several co-ops and have not known any of the hosts...nor many of the participants. I've been pleased. Since I don't have any direct association or information with reference to the failed co-ops...which seem to be the impetus for this discussion...and hopeful resolution...my information is anecdotal.

In the co-ops that I participated in the information was 1) clear about the product offered; 2) the co-op opened and closed in a timely fashion; and 3) the product was delivered promptly or a sufficient reason was given for its delay.

If the concern is for a co-op that has gone awry (or there many of these??), then the committee that has been suggested could step in and close the co-op and instruct the host to return all monies promptly or be banned from Dave's.

I'm a bit uncertain about the vendor part. It didn't bother me to call the vendor (or email) directly about the product. It seemed rather efficient to me and I didn't mind being told about other another product available at a substantial discount when I called (lol)...I bought it, too!! My thinking is that this could work to our advantage, as consumers, that we could find ourselves...eventually...in a good situation where some willing person (just as they have done) does the legwork to find someone reputable to sell to us at a discount all kinds of great gardening things. I mean, you don't have to buy....just an option.

Professional associations get all kinds of standing discounts on things...this could pave the way for our membership in Dave's to become even more valuable (which benefits Dave's). How many of you have received...say...a discount on a home computer purchased through the vendor that sells to your company at work? This stuff happens all the time, all around us.

I just think it's neat to see the door opening a bit wider. As far as a smaller vendor. If they only had 20 plants available...that could be stated at the top...first come, first served.

I belong to a botanical garden south of me (a bit of a drive)...that membership entitles me to free entry into other participating botanical gardens, discount at the gift shop(s), classes to take (fee...discounted for members), etc...but the part I want to mention is that they also schedule trips for members. Now, here's the thing...other groups do this trip thing, too...and usually the folks organizing it get free trips...does that stop anyone (that wants to go) from going on these trips? No! People are happy someone is organizing it, for heaven's sake, and are glad to participate. They sure seem to fill up!

So, the co-ops seem a bit like that to me....people are glad someone is going to the trouble (I sure am!)...and if it gets me a good price and a product I want, I'm a happy camper.

Okay then (lol), let's get this committee rolling, get our rules and regulations in place, and let's get back to shopping! 'Tis the season!

P.S. Let's have the complainers complain to the committee...and not on the threads...if the committee finds the complaint to be valid...zap the co-op. If not, caution the complainer....maybe a three strikes rule for them...three unwarranted complaints and you're banned from participating in a co-op. This could also be done for folks who don't pay or whatever (does that happen?)

Sorry, gone on long enough....but am grateful we are allowed free discussion and to disagree.

.

This message was edited Nov 9, 2008 2:45 PM

Okay, I haven't read the whole thread here, but I have a couple of concerns.

I hosted a coop last spring for a vendor. She's also a DG member and a personal friend.

I read this morning (on a non-DG forum) that my hosting this coop was considered to be a "front" for this vendor. That simply wasn't true. Apart from managing orders, tracking payments, and telling the vendor how many to order... I also took delivery of 700 plants, and cared for them for several weeks while I packed them all up and shipped them. I notified participants, by e-mail or on the thread, that I'd shipped their orders. I used my own return address on the package. So everyone in the coop should have known that I had the plants and was packing and shipping. Yet, here was this comment... by a non-DG member. Obviously, a DG member thought that and discussed it.

So, certainly a friendship can make a coop look like a front, whether it's true or not. How would a committee know the difference?

Next concern. So what if the host is just a "front"? The coops I've been in--here and elsewhere--run a lot more smoothly when the vendor handles most of the work. They are set up to handle the inventory and shipping, and there's a lot less chance for error. Furthermore, since they necessarily have control over their own business, it takes pressure off the host if they answer the questions and settle the problems. Not allowing vendors to host their own coops forces hosts to deal with problems that are probably beyond their control. That can leave bad feelings between members. Maybe THAT is part of the problem.

I vote for removing that restriction. The Marketplace is great, but it's not a discount or bulk option, and serves a different purpose than the coops. If members are also sellers and they can offer bulk, wholesale, or a special subscriber deal for quantities--how does that abuse DG? Plenty of coops are offered where the non-member vendor does most of the work. Why shouldn't member vendors have that same option?

This is very interesting.

1. I think the coop committee should be odd numbered in case there is a need for a vote.

2. the committee should have a data base of information including hosts, vendors and participants to avoid.

3. A primer for hosts to read so they could know of the pitfalls before they decide to try a coop.

4. Maybe for a first-time host -limit the number of participants and/or items offered.

5. The procedure if someone has a problem whether it is a host or participant.

6. At the beginning of a coop - for each thread - the rules should be posted.

7. I think that the readers of a thread should have a place to report something going wrong. So no one person has to actually read every thread.

8. The disclaimer should include that the host has the right to refuse a participant. It should also remove the committee from any backlashes. Maybe the reasons you can be banned from further coops, ie: non-payment, rudeness to host or others, contacting admin about a coop.

9. Have one person in admin to contact by one person in the committee if there needs some help with something website related.

10. Maybe a dmail to each participant to remind them of their responsibilities and the disclaimer when they place an order. Then they would have another chance to back out in plenty of time.

I like 4Paws suggestion that a "report" of past coops and how they went would be a good idea. I feel that the information the committee will have should be given to host when they are planning a coop. Too many sticky threads and no one will pay attention to any of them

Lots of great ideas out there. Just thought I would add my 2 cents.

Loretta

Because our Acceptable Use Policy, like most websites' policies, does not allow anyone to use the forums to promote themselves, their business or their website.

Business owners understand if you want to advertise your products or services, or sell to the public via someone else's website, then you should expect to pay for the privilege.

This isn't about us making money off the co-ops. It's about making sure that vendors who advertise here aren't placed at a disadvantage by more aggressive vendors who boldly try to sell directly in the forums for free. (You'll notice we keep the place swept free of spammy ads for Nokia phones, Nike shoes, knockoff purses, etc. We couldn't do that if it weren't for this provision in the AUP.)

And that's why using the classified ads makes sense: vendors can choose to sell directly, or have a member organizer help them with the announcements and recordkeeping. It removes all motive for any vendor to try to sneak one past, with the help of a member "accomplice"--they can come right out and market whatever they're selling. By paying (a VERY nominal amount) for the advertising, it is fair to the other advertisers, and allows us to consistently apply the AUP and keep the place free from spam.

Ya got lots of good points there. Looks nice. : )

Think maybe list of potential committee persons be listed and voted upon by the community that way nobody could come back and claim favoritism. We have lots of good, excellent hosts and non hosts that have are very personable in how they talkadn deal with dg folks and have good and excellent judgement that know how to deal fairly.

We don't want somebody coming back later and stayign well I don't like this committe member or they just don't like me. Playing devils advocate again so we get all the kinks out . A majority vote rules and they have no argument. Like the idea about an odd numeber person too.

I've been here since Aug 06 - I have hosted one co-op - I have participated in several - I received no complaint on mine - have no unresolved issues -

1) Don't think how long someone's been a subscriber should determine whether they can host a co-op - being here 10 yrs doesn't mean you are a good organizer, proficient at math, spreadsheets, etc.

2) I also don't like the idea of power being put in anyone's hands - you're just transferring the problem from Dave, Terry & Admin to others

3) I do think that complaints and issues- should at first be taken to host/hostess - if not resolved then taken to a mediation panel /commmittee -which makes all posts public - right now it is obvious that a majority of us have no idea of problems - If these had been made public - they may have taken care of themselves

4) I agree with above suggestion : someone making unwarranted complaints - should be dealt with - as well as those who don't pay - or have failed in organizing - which would be determined by a certain # of valid complaints

5)From the co-op sticky - How I understand it - Is that a host/hostess is free to approach any or all vendors (inc those w/membership or subscriptions) to obtain the best deal for DGers

Questions as to how the host/hostess chose her supplier - should be made to host and should be answered - But if you don't agree - host a co-op yourself with the supplier of your choice - in other words - put your money where your mouth is

Company direct co-ops - I don't feel these violate any of these rules if the vendor is not a member of Dave's Garden - I would use the AM Leonard Co-op as an example - unless they are subscribers and I am simply unaware of it

Ultimately I think that the way it was supposed to work this last time was ideal - except complaints and problems being taken to admin - I think that this should be done publicly - making all aware of what is going on - so that they can act accordingly - this would eliminate the need for Dave or anyone else to be involved -

1) If someone doesn't give what you paid for - you won't buy from them again - If it gets posted publicly - no one else will either
2)If someone doesn't pay - host/hostess post non-payments - no one is going to take another order

Someone suggested that committe members have at least 2 years of membership instead of 4. That would open the door to alot more choices, but we need to make sure we have people who can calmly and fairly handle unpleasant sitations and/or members.

And I agree it needs to be an odd number of members for voting purposes

I again nominate Critter and 4paws to start things off. Other ideas for members?
Shihtzumom? 9kittymom? JanetS? Dori?

Cat64129 - I think the 2 years or 4 years is the suggested number of years on DG to host a coop. I would think anyone willing to be on the committee would be welcome. We can nominate anyone we would like but that doesn't mean they want to do it or have the time to do it.

I think we need to continue to add ideas and wait for the work week to begin to see what kind of response we get from Dave. This is his day off and he was kind enough to provide us with some great answers to our questions this morning.

cat wrote

I wrote

I don't think that years of membership at this point should not the deciding factor for committe members. We would be overlooking some very valuable people here.

We do need some way/somewhere to access the many good vendors that are members here.

I would like to see a summary for each coop when it is over. Maybe show totals of what # of products ordered, # of participants. Percentage of missing /bad product. things along this line, even if it was just for the committee to access. Accountability is key for everyone involved.

I love the mentoring idea! I have no idea on what or how but I would do whatever I can to help!

Oh it should be an odd number of members.



This message was edited Nov 9, 2008 3:43 PM

I said I was going to stop reading and pick-up when y'all hashed it all out, but I can't. It's so interesting to watch the process. I am really impressed with all the thoughts and ideas and how y'all are evolving everything.
And if we do get these co-ops back, I want you to know that I REALLY appreciate all of the work y'all put into them. Just setting up the plan to even HAVE them is a major effort. Thanks. And thanks to Dave and crew for reconsidering. You have a great group of members here willing to bend over backwards to get this working correctly and at least minimize the bumps.

Sounds like I'm going for a promotion or something. ^_^

I just had to take a moment to pat ya'll on the back and say I appreciate your work here and this is why I come to Daves as much as I can.

And in case I get repremanded for not putting in a suggestion here's one (even though it's a repeat):
A multi-star system for successful co-ops based on feedback of past co-ops, given to the newly formed committee would be a great way to start up. I don't see how time on Daves could be relevant to organization skills.

The only problem I see with one of the previous committee sugestions, was that if no committee member (CM) can be involved with a particular co-op and all the CM's are our most reliable Co-op managers, we're kinda shooting ourselves in the foot by not letting the experienced DG co-opers offer co-ops. Does that make sense? Did I miss someone bringing this up already? I hope not. I've tried to keep up with all 3 threads. Hope I helped and let you all know that we all really appreciate all this typing and thinking. :-)

Edited to say:

I LOVE the co-op summary idea! It would be great to know what the organizer actually had to deal with!

This message was edited Nov 9, 2008 3:46 PM

One of the problems with a committee (and I'm not crossing off the idea, just making a statement) is that by the time a problem ultimately hits our desk...and it will, we'll wish for the original headache.

Think about it. You want to hear what Dave has to say if you have a problem. We'll have just as many complaints about the committee as we will about the co-ops themselves.

Longevity here at DG does not automatically give one good judgment or organizational skills either.

Keep up the discussion though, we're here and we're listening.

tcs1366 - I'm sorry - I guess I was reading 4Paws reply.

No-I think what we were saying is that if you are a single co-op moderator, you couldn't participate in that particular co-op-saying that committee members couldn't join any co-ops I agree would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

While I will go with the majoroty and if the Admin reconsiders this, I also agree that a length of time doesn't neccessarily establish the ability to either run a co-op or be able to be fair and well spoken enough to be on the committee....but again, for the good of the whole will go with what the majority decide. I think that some of the longer standing members are not well spoken, not fair, sometimes harsh and not always reational-IMHO of course....

I was just thinking too, A committee while good, I see the problem with this, to prevent anybody yelping favoritism, the commitee members would have to be taken out of particpating in a co-op and hosting and that not fair to them. Cuz ya know somebody somehere down the line when they have a problem is gonan start things up again.

Stil think the best way is some air tight disclaimers and you have to click a button to agree to rules before being allowed or hosting. I don't want to see some of the best organizers and enablers and knowlegable plant people not allowed to particpate. They help make the co-ops fun and smooth . You go to some sites and such that say you have to read and agree before the transaction goes further. You agree to this and this type thing and have al the rules and rule sof etiquette on it.

If trouble starts on a thread. evrybody agree to the first person only postign some sort of code which is in the buyer and host agreement for evrybody to halt the coop fo rthe moment and let things be done privately and when straightened out let it resume again.

I think the point for the committee is to feild the majority of the issues and only hand the unresolvable ones to admin-to be honest I think it is all about respect. If we place people on that committee that others respect, then their decision will in the end be respected-the main objective to be to alleviate most of the burden that the admin shoulders right now....

>>I don't think that years of membership at this point should not the deciding factor for committe members.
>>We would be overlooking some very valuable people here.

Nanny -- yea - i know... i got a phone call i had to take and really hit SEND before i had finished my post.

IF ... if we had a committee, it would have to be calm, level-headed members ... and you are all right, yrs on this sit has nothing to do with that... i think the original point that brought up the yrs, was for co-ops.... so you dont' get a brand-spankin' new member who is all of a sudden running a Co-Op.

Since I have never done a Co-Op, only participated in them... I'm just going to sit back and just read the on-going discussions.

Terese

Again, a brand new member may in all honesty have the ability to host one-my first was after about 6 mos here at DG-but I am an organized person that likes to have all my ducks in a row and I did ask many seasoned hosts for their advice and help-and most of them were all to happy to lend it-I got a few "this sin't going to work", "it is too much" but there were a couple that offered me constructive feedback that in the end made it better....but I can understand if peeps don't feel all the comfortable with a newbie hosting one...

I think many of the most qualified people to do coops were shut out the last time there was a close the coops flap. The rule that no one who sold any plants anywhere meant anyone who actually had any contacts for good coop prices and experience in packing and shipping, keeping records and so on, was prohibited.

If someone isn't tacking any fee onto the coop prices other than the usual ones for shipping and cost of packing, etc. I don't think it matters if they sell plants that have nothing to do with that coop.

I think the committee is a great idea, I think having a membership requirement on anyone who runs a coop is a great idea. I think two years would be sufficient. I think it would also be a good idea to require that there be at least two people coordinating a coop and get rid of the membership time limit on the second person. That would allow someone with experience to bring along others with no experience to learn.

I think taking the coops to another board or, worst of all, a yahoo group with all those darned emails, is a terrible idea. It would be better, I think, if we had one forum for the actual business of coops and a separate forum for chit chat about coops.

Finally, I think there should be some standards for what qualifies as a coop and what is merely a little bit of a discount for DG members that should be in classifieds or marketplace.

Perhaps anything that is at wholesale prices or a significant discount for bulk purchases as well as rare varieties offered at a special price could be a coop. I'm thinking in particular with the last category of the coops that are organized for specific plants with varieties not usually available such as peonies. Anything that is merely a special sale or discount for members should be in classifieds or marketplace requiring that the vendor pay a small fee. Because really, the fees for either are no hardship on a vendor.

If DG members were restricted to advertising and selling through either classified ads or the Market Place and were never allowed to be co-op vendors, regardless of who was named host, there would be no shilling.

Perhaps the co-op forum could be used for interest threads only. Those interest threads could close when the co-op started.

The actual co-ops could be started in the classified ads. The $5 fee should not be an obstacle. Moving all co-ops to the classifieds would be fair to DG members who are vendors not allowed to sell in the co-op forum.

From that point on, communication between host (or her team) and the participants would be by d-mail. The d-mail blast is a very efficient way to send info to the group. If permitted by DG rules, a link to the co-op spreadsheet could be included in the ad.

Those who want to chat about the particular plants being purchased could open a thread in the appropriate gardening forum to discuss the plant, not the co-op.

Something doesn't sit right with not organizing co-ops that have member vendors. Can't explain it. I'd like to do a co-op someday with CountryGarden's glad corms, and that rule would preclude it, patrob.

The drawback to having all the buying done via dmail and not on the threads is making quotas - plus it's really FUN to egg each other on to help fill an order.

There are many, many good people to be on an advisory committee. It would not be appropriate, in my view, to mentor/oversee/advise a co-op as a committee member and buy or be part of the team for that co-op. It might be too difficult to not be impartial.

Another point - setting guidelines as to what is a good discount or an appropriately exotic plant - that's the business of the host and the participant. If it's not a good enough deal, then folks won't buy. If they want to buy together for whatever reason, that is their choice.

Many times the process of choosing the vendor is done in the co-op forum in the early interest threads.

Lately I've been thinking about writing guidelines for choosing an attorney (I think I bombed in my current choice) - perhaps guidelines in choosing a co-op to participate in, and questions to consider in becoming a host. This has likely been mentioned...

I feel the same a s 4paws. That don't sit right. We want to use Dg members more than outsiders. We want to build the vendors in the community that are out there workign their fileds and gardens and such.

I may not host a co-op but sure do like getting in on the caldium co-ops from both our dg members. I joined in late for a tropical co-op that was vendored by a dg member. To help fill a flat I ordered stuff I had no idea what it was. I now have a nice little banana patch growing. : ) I hope if it comes aroudn again to get some more stuff.

Hmmm. Well, then, would it be possible to require all coop vendors to purchase an ad, as part of the coop policy? That might help equalize the member and non-member vendors. All vendors would have an equal investment in DG, regardless of their membership status.

I'm still not sure I see the conflict, though. Subscribers never see the ads, so the advertising vendors aren't reaching those people anyway. The non-subscribers who do see the ads, can't see the coops.

Edited to add: maybe the ads could be posted on the coop page, where subscribers can see them.

This message was edited Nov 9, 2008 5:15 PM

I just moved this post as per request to this Fix it forum.

Love constructive thoughts. Maybe the third times a charm. I am a BIG fan of all of DG and the coop part has been a wonderful asset for me. But then I am not on the firing line. But I would sure love to find a way to keep our DG buying power intact.

There must be a solution that allows coops to be run without having the personal issues about refunds, missing items, poor quality etc be posted or complaints sent off to the administration.


1..A Listing would me made in the DG Classifieds by host of a proposed coop. The listing cost would be repaid by members if the coop proceeds, otherwise out of pocket by the host. The advertisement would send the prospective member to a coop order forum.

2. There would be at strictly "for orders order" thread that would be a form letter from the host that included a list of items available that would then be cut and pasted with only the quantity blanks filled in by the participating member. Nothing else allowed. Changes would be requested by a member via d-mail to the host. One posting per member allowed only. Price changes, cancellations, extras would be announced via blast d-mail from the host and changes wanted by a member would d-mailed back to the host. Changes would be reflected in a mandatory spread sheet for all coops that would be posted for a period at the end of the coop to correct mistakes. Those corrections would be via d-mail

3. Have all payments and shipping information done via blast D-Mail directly from the host. All responses from members would go to the host via d-mail.

4. Members would be advised that no complaints about a coop to the administration would be dealt with ever and sending such a complaint could result in banishment

5. Have a chat thread for a coop that would be strictly for cultivation information and general chat. *No gripping, sniping, accusations and complaints allowed. No coop information would be allowed to be posted by the host either about shipping, payments, etc to individual members, as that must be done by private d-mail. Exception would be for general information about the the status of the coop. * Possible expulsion if broken.

6. Have a rating system for the host. A DG Coopdog. Poor feedback could result in the advertisement of a proposed coop to be denied to a host. Thus no coop. The rating system should not have room for comments. Maybe use "Thorns". None for "Excellent" , a few for "Good" and too many for "Poor". More extensive written comments could be left as they are now. I would leave the vendor out as most items are double shipped and that may leave a very gray area of who is responsible for bad product being received.

That's my 2 cents that will, without the coops, cost me 4 cents. Patti

I've been offline for several hours and am trying to catch up with the excellent suggestions and feedback posted this afternoon. I've got some comments about the committee idea...

I'm not sure I agree with KittyLover's critique of the committee idea, although I do think it needs to be carefully thought through. I don't think any of the people offering to help on a committee or as co-op advisers/mentors are making a grab for power, and I do think part of the idea of having a committee is to move most of the burden of dealing with the co-ops from admin to elsewhere. Making all problems public would likely get very messy, and if we ask admin to make all the evaluations and decisions about complaints and complainers, we're back where we are now, with a burden on admin that they don't want and shouldn't have. (I did agree with some of your other points, KL -- not trying to pick on you, just trying to discuss.)

I haven't definitely said I will be a committee member, because before I make a commitment I need to know what the role will entail so I can be certain I can meet the responsibility of it.

Melody made a good point about the possibility that problems might not get to admin until they'd blown up into enormous storms. If, for example, we gave the committee the power to administer "3 strikes" warnings and then ban somebody from the co-op forum (either for a limited time or permanently), I am pretty sure most people would not react gracefully but would take bitter complaints to admin, Dmail all their buddies, and post about it on other forums. And then we'd be back where we started, more or less.

But it's also possible that a committee could head off a lot of potential problems before they blew up. In particular, a committee consisting of a pool of mentors/advisers for co-ops might be useful. I agree with the developing idea that if we do this, each co-op would have to have one such person who would not be participating in the co-op. Hopefully we'd have a large enough pool of willing people that co-op organizers would have some choice about who to work with (but without overworking any one or two members).

I don't see the committee idea as the one and only solution, but as something to be considered in conjunction with stronger disclaimers and more information. I like the "accept" button idea needed before somebody can participate, to say they have read and understood about what they're getting into... however, I'm not sure how much protection such a button would really add. How many of us just click the "I accept" when installing a new program on our computers, without actually reading any/all of the license agreement? However, it might be an additional protection for the committee and/or admin, a way of putting the responsibility more squarely on each participant.

This is becoming so much work for you guys and all, but I think Melody is right. It won't matter if there is a committee or organization of any kind, Admin will still get the complaints.

The rules WERE put down in black and white and it still did not matter because Dave is so soft hearted that he could not tell anyone that they blew it. If you don't have rules followed to the tee, it won't work. Dave knows, and has said, that he does not have the heart to turn people down. Therefore, he and his staff get heartburn over the problems. Problems that most of us were not aware of.

If in fact this or anything else works and he does reconsider, there are a few things I would like to say.

1. When issuing rules, make them brief, to the point period. No long books. People's eyes cross and you lose all meaning.

2. Someone wrote that "we have all been in situations where our workplace purchases computers or something and we pick up one for our home use on the same order."

That might be fine if that one we get has nothing to do with whether the vendor gets the contract or not. I have been in a purchasing position where that would be highly illegal because you would always be suspected by someone.

This situation is "mushy". These rules cannot be put down in black and white. There are too many ambiguous situations that could or could not be right or wrong and most of them have been written here already.

3. What is the purpose of lists of members and their lengths of time? Unless there is a clear need for it, it will just muddy the waters. (Just one example of minutia).

Jeanette

Or 8. Patti/bbrookrd is a member who hasn't hosted, but would be excellent on a committee because she participates in so many. I don't think the committee should be limited to organizers. We need balance.

Very glad you're here, Patti. Need to bring in dbsmith, nyvoices, Pixydish, Lhasalover, so many others....I think we'd have a great group to serve and rotate in and out like volleyball players (about the only game I know). Perhaps serve for 3 months and when you've mentored one co-op, rotate out for a while. First group might have to stagger their way out with slightly shorter and longer stints, so that there is a fresh face monthly?

Patti, you know I like #2 with it's standard format and single post order thread. I'm not sure I like that all the other info should go by blast. Most folks ('way ahead of me, I need to add) are using spreadsheets, and that gives information on shipping, etc. very clearly - well, if it's set up clearly. Some spreadsheets boggle me. Perhaps members like patrob, who I know makes wonderfully readable ss, could make a committee to create a standard one for dg.

Oh, if I had to get dmails from 30 people in a co-op regarding any information that everyone had to give, I promise, I would never do a co-op. Keeping track of that would be a nightmare for me and I know my limits.

As far as the shipping from the organizers, well, I think it's good to have that information on a thread. It's a good reference, and perhaps for the host, a way to have others participate in the breakdown and prep to get it to them...you know, photos of lots of bulbs arriving, lots of bulbs ready to be packed, showing the size when everyone is waiting to see...that sort of fun stuff, if the host is into it (which I liked to do).

I don't know why a listing in classifieds is needed. I think the interest thread is one of the fun parts of deciding to do a co-op, and sometimes the discussion leads to an abandoned co-op. If no co-op, the classified ad poster is out $5, which is a lot to me these days. Or are you suggesting this after the interest thread has been completed and preliminary decisions have been made? By that time, most of the participants are drooling on the keyboard, ready to order.

While allowing for individual styles, I think the more standardized certain procedures become (which will become solid with trial and error), there will be fewer difficulties.

It's past my good brain time, so I'll not post again til morning. :-)

Good point about needing to keep any required reading as brief and concise as possible... otherwise people will skip over reading and click "accept" just as many do with software license agreements.

Just take a look at how long a lot of these posts are. How many did you all read word for word and your mind didn't wander?

Jeanette

Wrong forum - sorry.

This message was edited Nov 9, 2008 9:59 PM