Fixing the co-op forum

Only problem I see is if the person is a DG "empoyee", that would make DG liable again. I didn't think they wanted to be involved

Reshipping is also possible if the employee is a "work from home" employee... they could do it out of their own garage.

One of the problems we're trying to fix is the issue of complaints to admin and negativity spilling into other areas of DG.

Is our goal to find a way for admin to not have to deal with a single co-op issue, or is our goal to greatly reduce the issues that come across admin's collective desks?

We were thinking that by cutting down on the number of coop hosts, it would also cut down on complaints... especially after that person gains more experience with each coop.

I haven't commented so far on any of these discussions - it's taken me 3-4 days off and on to read everything on all the threads up to this point.

I've been involved in a few co-ops that were run top notch in my book and was very happy with the plants I recieved and the prices I paid.

I'm not real crazy about the whole committee thing, but, if Dave could see that as a do-able situation - I could live with it. It took me quite a few threads to realize what "shilling" was. I think sometimes we can get VERY good deals thru a vendor when one of our members has a good relationship with that vendor that will agree to a co-op - doesn't mean the host/hostess is getting any other deal than we are - just they were able to set this up due to dealing with them and a trust has been formed.

So far, I really like the idea "chris_lcf530" suggested. There is no recourse - you've "entered at your own risk" - Admin could delete complaints with no action taken. I believe if any of the complaints ended up on the forums - those comments could be deleted (I think admin can do that) and if the same person continues the discussion - block their membership/comments for a certain period of time. I also like the idea of the "star" system and feedback for co-op host/hostesses.

Just my 2 cents worth

Hmmm...seems the more the merrier of competent co-op hosts.

There is no benefit for vendors who are not already set up to pack and ship retail to do it for a co-op. Pacific Calla has their own online retail store; we get the highest discount without minimums. Bloomingbulb discounts in quantity increments, so if we buy from them, we get the discount only if it's shipped to our host. I don't know what other hosts have experienced with those two vendors, but neither has come after me for their business or our co-op, though both were very gracious and responsive with me.

Small vendors are more likely to be able to ship and do the personal attention. Those are the ones who likely can't toss in lots more services because the cost.

Adding a paid employee, who also does the packing and shipping-that's no longer a co-operative bulk buy, it's more of a business. Takes the participation part for all individuals completely out of the picture.

Glad you're here, PITAnita (nyvoices. =;-)

BTW, there are more people looking and reading and talking amongst themselves than who post here, so I wouldn't count the few most vocal posters on this thread as the only ones who care. Word is getting around.

4Paws, great ideas and thoughts being listed here, especial some of yours.

I would love to kill the word "coop". I like "Group Buy" Let's start fresh. My thoughts mostly from things I have found in all your thoughts as a group.

Have, as 4paws suggest, an initial Group Buy feasibility forum

Then I would have the Group Buy listed in the DG Classifieds as a Group Buy from a named host and vendor being started. This puts it clearly in a more committed space and may encourage more view of the classifieds which can contain great items.

I would love to see administration weigh in on how we could do a Group Buy that would require the participants and host to sign a statement of intent to follow the rules and abide by the decision of an arbitrator (or a committee) if a conflict arises before the coop begins. This posting was very succinct.


Each person so signing a acceptance would be directed to a thread for participating member Group Buy Order. No others would be allowed to enter this Particular.Group Buy. Again I quote 4paws

There would be formatted order forms for all coops designed by the host for easy use with a spreadsheet. The participant must cut and past it for their order posting with the participants desired quantities only. No comments or anything else on the Group Buy Order Thread.

If is is a timed start. All orders should be submitted to the host via d-mail, thus any that are too early could be rejected as such and not included until the host can return them for re-ording in a timely manner. Not sure if this works as I am not sure how the host could list them in the Group Buy Order thread after receiving them. ?

All changes would be by request from the participant via d-mail to the host for permission to edit. The participant upon permission granted from the host could then edit their initial post. People are too fickle (me too) and this would eliminate tons of changes and more thoughtful initial orders. The host can and should have Helper Hosts.

All extras, necessary deletions, price change, etc should be blast-d-mailed to the participants from the host.

I think it is great to give each participant a number according to the time that the order was submitted that is used and listed in numerical order instead of by just their DG name for all information and spreadsheet listing. Or by alpha order. Random is bad. This list would be in the second posting of the Group Order Thread. Far easier to find if it is always in the same place.

To have a spreadsheet required for all Group Buy orders. The location of the spreadsheet site would be listed as an edit into the second posting on the Group Buy Order Thread under the list of participants when the spreadsheet is available to be viewed.

To have the host send to each participant via d-mail the amount of payment required and the payment address, as well as any shipping or other information.

Each participant then must post an acceptance on a new Buying Forum that the order is correct and that they approve any Group Buy costs, shipping and the general time frame expected for shipment to the host and the turn around time. This would be in effect a second "Acceptance Button"

Then each participant must send via d-mail their address and the method of payment to the host.

The host needs to post after the names listed in the second posting of the Group Buy Order form after the amount due the amount of payment received

If a participant has a problem with any aspect during the Group Buy or the actual order received or not received, a d-mail must be sent to the host and to the arbitrator(or a committee) by the participant. Not posted in the chat thread.

The host must respond in a timely fashion to the participant via d-mail as well as send a copy of the response to the arbitrator(or a committee).

The participant must then respond via d-mail to both the host and the arbitrator (or a committee) that the solution or reason for the problem is accepted as satisfactory or that the participant is not happy with the hosts or the product received and wants an intervention by the arbitrator (or a committee).

The arbitrator (or a committee) would then decide what needs to be done. None of these d-mails would be public.

There would be a Group Buy Watchdog to have a simple rating system for the success of a coop, the host and the arbitrator (or committee).

If the participate is not happy with the outcome made by the arbitrator (or a committee), they can then post a negative rating for the host. But they can not post dissatisfaction in any forum ( as 4paws says, "no spillage") regarding the particulars of a Group Buy. If violated, the administration, if aware or advised by the arbitrator (or a committee), can simple erase the posting with the comment "inappropriate" in it's place. Who would ever want that with their name?

If the host is not happy, they can choose to not host again. And if they chose to discuss any aspects of a Group Buy or a participant in a negative manner, they can have that posting removed and marked as "inappropriate"

As Hart said


A Group Buy Chat Only thread for a Group Buy would be set up for only the participants of that Group Buy. It could be monitored by the arbitrator (or a committee)and any person posting what is not appropriate could advise the poster via D-mail to edit their inappropriate chatter immediately or to ask administration to remove it.

I think people should be encouraged to rate their Group Buy experience, not only for the monetary savings, but for the knowledge gleaned, friends made and the joy that our gardens bring us with all of our DG Group Buys.

Please note, I am a buyer, not a host. So I know squat but I loved my Coops, now in my mind a Group Buy. But I would be happy to call them anything, just call them back. I now have to read all the new ideas that have been posted since I started this, too long ago and too long , sorry. Patti



This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 8:57 PM

This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 9:22 PM

Patti, it's not always easy to put thoughts into short sentences, so don't be sorry ...we're all doing out best...and with that in mind, I know I have to read that in the morning when my brain works best...you have a couple of new suggestions, and you're getting to the details of how a group buy (as GB on DG) would work.

We called our co-op in Montrose, CO (I joined when it had been running for 30 years, so it wasn't really mine) a "Food Buying Club," for which we had annual dues and individual jobs, plus a mark-up to cover costs and "extras" - the annual dues were refunded when someone quit the co-op. (see, brainlessness makes me wander to somewhat related topics)

There have been a lot of suggestions (including by me, I think) that admin delete, send standard non-responses, or otherwise ignore member complaints about co-ops. The problem is that's not the way admin has ever dealt with problems here, and they may not want to start now.

Here's what Dave said about such a suggestion on the first co-op thread in this forum:

"Ignoring people who have been harmed by a bad organizer is also a LOT easier said than done. You don't know us very well if you think we can easily turn our back on people who are having trouble."

Maybe we need to focus our brainstorming on how to greatly reduce the number of complaints (or the number of co-ops that result in complaints) rather than on how to channel all complaints away from admin.

?

I do believe we are focussed in that direction, critter.
I think there will always be complaints, but I think as more and more experienced people are involved in group buys, they will become more and more savvy about how they work, and the complaints will be reduced to an acceptable number (they can never be eliminated, I suspect). As more people become experienced, every buy group will be composed of many experienced members who can be mentors on the spot. I found that to be true in my co-ops, particularly the first, in which you helped immensely, critter, as did others, to determine shipping, overhead, correct counts, etc. Teamwork. Plus, no participant was afraid to chime in and give answers if they had them for another member and the host was not available, as happens in so many other threads on dg.

Following directions is a huge thing...the form for ordering would help reduce that confusion.

Critter, I believe that's exactly what people have been doing here with all of their suggestions on how to improve the coops , mentor hosts, standardize processes, use of spreadsheets. etc.

The basic problem here is that the members WANT the rules enforced to insure fair and trouble free coops. DG seems to want to help in matters where a member is truly being harmed by coop activity, but rightfully does not want to be bogged down with petty trivial complaints. A volunteer screening committee for all complaints would seem to do the trick.

Perhaps, if not a "complaint" committee, then maybe a group of volunteer advisor/mentors to be on call providing coverage throughout a coops duration to spot potential problems on a thread and quell them. Perhaps the monitor could from time to time jump into a thread and ask prospective purchasers to post any questions about how the coop works or the size of the plants or whatever so that everyone reading the posts is less likely to have unrealistic expectations.

It would seem that the better the communication and the more informed the participants are, the less problems should arise. Most people are not going to know what an ellle is , so some time needs to be spent explaining that.

II was thinking - and I came up with an idea - Dave sets up a list like address exchange - one list members/subscribers who would like to be contacted by a vendor offering special discounts, etc for DG members - vendors pay for this list quarterly - maybe $20
Vendors should submit their policies for any guarantees, replacements, etc. so that would be upfront and customers would have to read and agree to terms before purchasing - of course DG Admin would have to approve these before the vendor gets a list
A lot of vendors have their own websites w/systems like paypal , propay, etc. payments and shipments can be tracked



hosts would post interest thread when proposing a co-op - subscriber interested could d-mail host their real e-mail address for her to contact them - the co-op would then take place off DG by e-mail - isolating co-op no spillover-
hosts would have a rating system -stars for positve - x's for strikes - this would go in an area where any participants -on list could see- and be aware - right now we have no idea really - obviously there've been problems - not reflected in the current feedback system - since this hasn't been working - perhaps a way of preventing problems would be --- DG Admin give the hosts a rating by when they are approved
Hosts - should have to have some kind of approval - based on prior co-ops -- hosts paypal acct could have any removal of funds monitored and approved by a mentor- not participating in co-op
Hosts would be limited to one co-op at a time
depending on rating - based on past co-op's - that rating would allow host to have x number of participants and x number of products

I think I have covered most of the issues here -a- no money would disappear
b - no one would be able to take on a drastically bigger co-op than they proved they can do successfully
c- individuals are made aware of the service, etc. status of either vendor or host - if they have nothing but stars OK - if they have even one x that should raise caution
d -Admin oversight - anyone not sticking to rules has resulting consequences for either member, host or vendor - rating changed -
priviledged revoked, etc. -- no complaints fielded - no discussion on any DG thread

Admin - Please Let me know what you think of this alternative.
and thank you for your patience with all of us
Hopefully together we can iron out these problems and preserve a much loved feature that really does enhance our community
Esther Sams



This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 11:57 PM

I know we're generating all sorts of different ideas, but I've seen repeated suggestions that people promise not to contact admin re. co-ops, that admin ignore any such communications, etc... and I'm not sure the admins have indicated they want to be quite that hands-off.

On the other hand, we'd be asking them to be very hands-on with some of the suggestions, from pre-approving co-ops (which they've said they won't try again) to acting as a banker as Kittylover suggested.

There's got to be a good middle road. Hopefully admin will weigh in and let us know what level of participation would better suit them. :-)

I'm not saying Admin should be banker - each co-op host would have their own paypal acct -host would just have someone like suggested before - mentor -someone not participating in co-op -monitoring removal of any funds- this could be waived once a host reaches a certain rating - that's not a lot of oversight - funds collected should be sent to suppliers - incoming transactions do not need to be monitored by mentor-- so this would be one or two transactions

I'm suggesting the the majority of this take place off DG - The co-op forum could be used as interest threads - where hosts that have been approved post proposed co-op - interested subscribers - D-mail their real e-mail address to her - then all communication takes place one on one - which wouldn't really increase work - if a question is asked - you can send Q&A to all in co-op - totally isolates co-op from the rest of dg - no one else can read what's going on

Admin is not taking part in approving co-ops at all in this suggestion - merely approving host and the number of participants and products in co-op depending on her rating - once approved and rated - Admin does not need to do anything unless host's status/rating needs changing

The vendor part - has nothing to do with the co-ops - It is another way of vendors to get DG's approval to approach members with special offers for DGers only- with less work on Admin's part - instead of reviewing/approving ads all the time - 4 times a yr the vendor would get a list of members who would like these opportunities have placed their e-mail addresses and/or mailing address on a list - similar to the address exchange - for say $20 (vendor pays- no cost to be on list)- this would provide access to both off DG - and take away the problem of not getting past page 1 on marketplace - Marketplace could still be used for individual items, etc.



This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 11:29 PM

Decided I'm not bright eyed and bushy-tailed enough to participate right now...tomorrow, good folks.

Please ignore the post that was here....

This message was edited Nov 10, 2008 8:00 PM

We have so many ideas floating around now it's getting a bit confusing. Has anyone heard from Admin at all? I'm wondering if any of these ideas are even close to something they would consider.

Laura, I have also done several coops with Blooming Bulb and I have always had to contact them. Same with the 3 Coops with Growers Solution. I had no idea vendors were doing those sorts of things. For regular coops, I've only worked with the 2 listed above, but they were never pushy, always a pleasure to deal with, and quick to fix any problems.

Chris... I like how ya did that. Only thign I see ya left out is the punshiment for a severe offender, like one who make sa complaint on the threads and after others say so it in private, and still they don't.

and if should be that a host turns fraudulant in acceptign money and not returning it, then Dave has to step in and it should be the only time.

With alot of what you wrote, it shoudl take a whole lot of dmails and minor complaints of off Dave and Terry. All the petty ones.

Maybe what it need to be is like ya say blunt and to the point. I don't think to many people won't get the picture.


problems I see for outisde vendors. If you go to Blue stone say for example and ask them can ya giv eus a discoutn on this stuff... but you have to come to Dg and fill out a form and sign this and do that. I cna tell ya right now, that those outside vendors are gonan say noway. They big companies an ddon't have time. They more interested in the regula rful price dpayign customers and genrally only wil agree to coops to get rid of stuff or in the hopes that at soem point the coop peopel wil buy at regula rprice sform them, which they really don't count on. So a whole lot of coops that have existed will probably not become available again.

Jill, I was hoping that one of you would get back to Dave's feelings. He started this company, built it into a very good one which we are all very appreciative of. You have to consider that all of these rules were in place and he could not tell the people to just "go away".

They, we, are his friends/customers. He feels responsible for each and every one of us.

I think, from the tone of what you are writing up, that it sounds like the customers/buyers are whiners with no complaints due. So, you tell them to get lost. BUT, in the meantime, you have a bad vendor who walks away with a minimum/lousy work and the money.

Nothing in what I have seen, and I do have to admit that I did not read it word for word, has been written for a vendor to agree to.

I suppose without all of the information/complaints in your hands that admin has it is difficult to write something like to cover all situtions.

Jeanette

There was mention of the vendor posting policies regarding returns and quality for the co-op. Kittylover's post #5776416 about two and a half hours up, Jnette.

I think we are all considering Dave's feelings. And ours. And hosts, participants, other members, vendors... If we can make this work, won't everyone be happy? It won't be perfect, but is anything?

Admin will be along tomorrow, I'm sure...

Critter, You are probably right. I do feel that there are mixed signals coming form the administration. It appears that they don't want to endure the nuisance of whiners, yet still want to be able to aid genuine victims.

The membership seems to want the rules that are already in place to be enforced and are frustrated that the administration has not, albeit for noble reasons, been comfortable in adhering to the policies which they set. In trying to accomodate the concerns of the unhappy coop participants the administration has passed the limit of their patience and wants the matter gone. Yet, they also want to please the general membership.

Well, there are many suggestions here for how improve the coops, thereby diminishing the number of complaints as well as a number of suggestions for dealing with coop grievances.

What is missing here is feedback from the administration over suggested solutions to the vendor problem. We've not heard from the administration regarding our suggestions for fees and advertising requirements to be assessed to prospective vendors. Nor have any members commented on how this might affect their ability to negotiate good discounts with their vendors.

I have been a manager in the past. One key thing that I learned and felt that it is necessary to respect three key parts to make it work, be it committee or whatever we would call it...
The comittee needs to have ALL three or it will not work:
1. Responsibility
2. Authority
3. Accountability

To clarify, if we set up the committee and they spend their time volunteering to get some standardization for clarification and ordering (thus helping new hosts and to prevent some problems from the start...thus keeping the number of problems lower that will need to be contented with ), they are accepting the responsibilities of the committee. DG again is not responsible for any of it.

As for authority, they must be deemed for all authority for their decisions. No, some will not like their decisions, but that will be needed for it to work...absolutely no complaints can go to DG (one of the two problems we are working on together to get them back). I certainly do not want to come across telling our respected DG team what they should do, but consistently sending a standardized reply restating the risk piece, sending them to committee, or the reply of their choosing will help them eventually disappear. The committee's ruling stands. That is giving them the authority. You take away authority and the whole idea falls. Did anyone ever work on a committee at work and have responsibilty and accountability without having any authority to implement anything?

Lastly, accountability...the committee is accountable, as we are all accountable to the rules, our behavior, and to its members. Our actions speak louder than words. The same respected members, I feel, can do this without mentioning it is needed.

You need all three to work. DG cannot be responsible, accountable, but there they would need to give the committee all authority, too. That is why no dmails to DG, and if so, I would again hope they would not be answered or a standard reply that is not giving them to prevent any headaches. I agree with others, they will cease eventually knowing there will be no one listening, esp with another means of settling it.

So sorry long...it is late and I felt the need to clarify it all. It was something I used often in my job, and it consistently worked...if I give an employee something to do, I need to give them all three (including the credit for a job well done!) I hope I make sense at 1:12 am...
RatherB

Actually - I was discussing an alternative way of vendors offering deals to members - dealing with them directly - they would submit their policies to DG to acquire a list of members who are interested in being offered discounts, etc. exclusive to DG - we have actually done this in the co-op with AM Leonard - one of his policies was that all coop prices are good till Dec 31 - he has been very fair - I don't think DG has to look at every vendor that a co-op host may use - But I do think that hosts should spend some time researching this - not just going on lowest price - One supplier I used replaced a whole shipment for me - It never arrived - Fed Ex said it did

This is why I think DG should rate the host - I've done 1 co-op - but there were zero complaints --- I have owned two businesses- neither plant related - have been a bookkeeper in another - also been in charge of accounts payable and receivable - There is a lot that goes into a co-op - not everyone has the skills - I think they should have to prove themselves - but I also think members have to get it out of their heads that DG is going to solve their problems - they have to be cautious -

The idea about the vendors - I actually came up with because I would like to offer a discount to DGers from my business-which would have satisfaction guaranteed and free shipping - but the company I'm with doesn't allow us to place paid advertisements - corporate reserves that right - - but my lips are sealed unless Admin approves this - no- one here - even my old school chum knows about my business - I have never tried to skirt the rules--- But businesses can do alot when dealing with an individual customer - If it's a quality business

ratherb, your message is very succinct at 1:15am!

somehow during an edit - the part I was replying about got removed - -- if you read my previous two posts and question by another - this will make sense - When approaching DG to get a list of member that would be interested in being contacted by vendors ofering discounts, specials, etc. exclusively for DG member - they would need to submit a list of their policies - so that it's clear up front i.e. - how do they handle lost shipments, dead plants, customer satisfaction, shipping -complaints
before DG would grant them access to a list of members wanting these opportunities - that way DG admin can screen out any that don't measure up

This is separate from co-ops - DG would only be approving and rating hosts - it's up to the host to do her homework in selecting a supplier -

wow, I think it just took me 2 hours to read thru all this. I am really glad that Dave is giving us the opportunity to find a solution. I just have a few ideas....let me see if I can recall them all! LOL!

*I like the idea of an 'accept' button each time a host starts a co-op, and each time a member wants to join a co-op. I myself am very guilty of not fully knowing the co-op rules and blew it big time in a co-op. I didnt go back and re-read the sticky note, having an accept button will also serve as a reminder to all when entering the co-op that we are doing so at our own risk.

* I like the star system rating of the co-op, but... who would give the rating for each successful co-op? if we arent allowed to complain about a host/hostess...how would anyone know it was successful and well organized?

* I dont like the idea of mandatory co-hosts. the one co-op I did with a co-host is the only bad co-op I've been in. I personally like to make sure that everything is done correctly and wouldnt want to get a bad rating if something went wrong on the co-hosts end.

* I dont like the idea of monitoring the size of the co-op etc.... even if its live plants...the host should have a game plan in force (packing comittee etc) before they even begin the co-op. The glove co-op I just did sold 1100 pair of gloves and the price was over $4500. I know my limitations...and I know I am capable and organized enough to sort and ship out 81 packages of gloves all by myself. however, this may be overwhelming to some people. I think that the star system would help greatly, and let the host/hostess prove themselves in time.

* I agree with having a mentor (self selected but someone who has a high star rating) for the first two co-ops. I think this will help a new host keep their co-op managable. I know many people mentored me on my first co-op and I am forever grateful!

* I think that all accounting and money issues should be availabe to all participants. for instance... posting a spreadsheet, then posting the sales receipt/invoice once the order has been placed (so participants can see that they were not overcharged) also, if the host is charging a packaging fee....post receipts of how it was spent...etc. This is a co-op not a money making opportunity for the host. so there should be no 'handling fee' . hosts should be up front and show participants exactly where the money went, what was ordered, and when it was ordered...etc.

* As a hostess, I've had a bad experience with personal checks and will not accept them anymore. However money orders, paypal and creditcard payments are welcome (credit card payments are accepted thru a paypal invoice~no paypal account needed) I do understand some people wont use paypal, and others wont do money orders. so I think limiting to paypal wouldnt work.

* as for the vendors.... just change the rule on DG .... no co-ops allowed if the vendor is also a DG member. period. I realize there are many vendors on DG...bleek, snowpeak iris, caladiums4 less...etc. let them advertise the same deal on the DG ad....and if they need help with spreadsheet or accounting.... let one of their DG friends help them out. we can still get the same deals but dont allow it in the co-op forum. as soon as a known vendor co-op is opened...shut the co-op down and advise the vendor to advertise instead. post it on the thread. so the people who wanted to participate can go look at the ad or dg marketplace and order the item there instead.
this would put an immediate end to the shilling.

* maybe have volunteer moderators to watch the co-op forum and immediately report any abuses to DG admin (in lieu of a committee) so that it would be shut down before it got out of hand. This would just be one or two dg members who volunteer to glance thru the threads everyday and report vendor co-ops or nasty exchanges, etc.

* if dg helpdesk gets any complaints about bad product or missing money... send the auto response...you participated at your own risk...

okay, thats all I can remember...back to finalizing that co-op!

AnjL

One thing that probably should be kept in mind with the suggestions, is that the more "back end" needy suggestions, will most likely prolong or put off indefinitely a solution. In other words, the more forums, tools, hoops to jump through, that have to be created on the admin side, by an admin that's pretty fed up with the hassles of the co-ops, I doubt would happen any time soon. Especially considering when things like the Market Place still need a lot of time and effort.

I by no means have the answer, but I think the solution needs to be as simple as possible, for admin to be on board. They ended it by turning off the lights, and locking the door without a word. With that in mind I can't imagine they'd be ready to re-build the entire house, just to unlock the same door, and flick the same switch back on with any uncertainty that the same results wouldn't happen again.

Chris

Gotta get a move on for the day, but reading above, this ideas hit.

I like how Chris put the buyer rules and the accept.

As for vendors.

First , this part"* as for the vendors... just change the rule on DG ... no co-ops allowed if the vendor is also a DG member. period. I realize there are many vendors on DG...bleek, snowpeak iris, caladiums4 less...etc. let them advertise the same deal on the DG ad...and if they need help with spreadsheet or accounting... let one of their DG friends help them out. we can still get the same deals but dont allow it in the co-op forum. as soon as a known vendor co-op is opened...shut the co-op down and advise the vendor to advertise instead. post it on the thread. so the people who wanted to participate can go look at the ad or dg marketplace and order the item there instead.
this would put an immediate end to the shilling. "

Even though they are semi big. They are not goign to bring in product to help DG friends out without knowing exactly how much product and being first either. They have to protect themelves. They brign in the best product at the cheapest prices, not for themelves, but because they part of Dg and tryign to help us and know how we love plants and can't afford the big prices. Those folks are Dg helpers not gougers.

So we have a somewhat, plan for th ebuyers. Now for the vendors.

When the host contacts the vendor they ask up front in the email. What is th eproduct description, varities, colors. What is the price per item, box, so many pieces colelctively ect. What is the return policy for product AND HERE is where maybe we need clarification with the vendor. Soem will guarenette product to the host and then to buyer, some only to host, some none at all. Host put blurbs abotu the policy , but I don't think some folks get a clear picture of how the refund policies of th ecompany work. Which causes confusion. Any vendor not wantign to put their refund exchance replacement policie sdown and if they gonna drop ship or send to host should not be allowed to vendor that coop.

Have the host, put in Bold upfront in the first post, copied exactly the refund policies to the host.

Then, when a coop gets ready to open to save on alot of buttons and time, when the order thread opens and you ready exactly what the coop about and want in. Then you sign the agreement button for the buyer rules and that you are agreeign to the terms of condition from the buyers.

This then would allow the buyers to have in hand a copy of the vendors own refund, exchange, replacement policy and they instead of complaining to admid would have an actual course with proof to handle such things with the vendor.

I see alot of coops with no vendor policies on them and then when things go wrong the host get jumped and the scabble starts, this way the host can say here is the policy given to us, here is the contact number, you agreed to Buyer beware, but this vendor has this recourse for you.

The buyer shoudl then conduct all complaints to the buyer leaving host and admid out of it after all they signed a ccop agrement button.

There always gonan be soem problem or somethign come up, I have never , ever seen any type of coop where there was not one remark of a semi complaint or questions on the threads. There always goign to be somebody who still does not understand from th ebegining or does understand and refuses to acknowledge they did not do their homework before participating.

But maybe, just maybe if the whole coop forum as a collective can try and follow any new AUP then maybe Dave and Terry would have a whole lot less damils to answer or look at.

Maybe stricker quidlines and clarifications for both buyers and vendors and people steppign up and gently policing the coop thread they on is all that can be done.

Perhaps it can be a Vendor Rule that if a vendor is not willing to back up their product with replacement / refund (under reasonable terms), they not be a vendor who can participate in any Group Buy / Co-Op as a source. Leave them to be in the Market Place. Product must arrive to Organizer viable and super healthy.

Expectations of refund if the reason the product expires is the fault of the Organizer should be clarified. There should be no reason the Organizer can't distribute the product. Multiple back-up plans in place from the start. Some legalese holding Organizer accountable for unlawful actions, perhaps. Re-assuring the Participants that the Organizer knows they can be pursued in court by the Participants for absconding. The Participants being solely responsible for pursuing legal actions, not Dave's Garden.

More over-regulating, rules about everything!
I think the vendor policies made public regarding each co-op is extremely important. I think that if the vendor refuses, then it is up to the buying group, fully aware of that lack, deciding whether or not to continue.

Requiring co-hosts and team organizers is not mandatory, but an option for some organizers. The mentor would not, for any group buy. The mentor is the volunteer, impartial observer with experience. Letting the host select the mentor could alleviate personality issues. The mentor's role is not to do the work, but to follow the thread, assist with technical/procedural issues, as well as any other difficults. Complaints for that co-op could go to the mentor, who then would decide which way to proceed, settle it then (most likely scenario), or take it to other mentors (committee) for assistance. Complaints to admin get circled back to the co-op mentor group to address. (I am now assuming the disclaimer would be in place)

I do not like the idea of prohibiting member vendors from being co-op vendors. That's like not buying at the grocery store down the street because your brother owns it and you don't want to play favorites (but why not? They are members, we know them!) If there must be more regulation on that, how about the member vendor needs to have been a subscriber for some set period of time before vending in a co-op.

I still wait for the answer to the question I posed yesterday. If it is a concern about member vendors getting special consideration, will an ad in classifieds announcing the co-op with this member vendor satisfy the AUP?

OR..this moment, a light bulb flashed:
If a vendor member wants to vend to co-ops, perhaps there can be a different membership fee established just for those vendors? They cannot run their own co-op, but another member can who does not gain from that relationship. No way anyone can tell, but we have to believe we are all honorable.

I see suggestions for alternatives that really leave out folks in lower income categories, who need these deals the most, or are very complicated.

I've always thought I should have KISS tattooed to the back of my eyelids. :-)

I think we need a new thread for dial-up folks. I think we also need input from admin as to which direction to go next. I did not read Terri's post as saying "no" to the committee, only to not get stuck on just one idea.

I am willing to be a part of any committee if necessary. I will do anything I can to help keep our coops alive.

Kathy

4paws, that's just how I've been imagining the mentor/committee thing might work. It might also work well to have a smaller committee (3 or 5 people not currently mentoring) to arbitrate disputes... But the structure you put forth seems good to me.

While the role of a co-host could vary, I think every co-op should have more than one person at (or at least near) the helm. A co-host could help with the work of the co-op, doing the number crunching or the packing, etc. Or they could simply be somebody who is privy to all the information and would be able to step in as a backup person, in case the host has a computer access issue or is unable to complete the transaction for any reason. (I don't care if we call the second person(s) co-hosts, back-ups, whatever makes sense.)

The discussion is continued here: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/922686/

Critter, I agree with both of your comments as posted.

4paws, lots of good ideas. We all have some very polarized ideas.

This thread is not only too long, but critical points are getting buried.

Someone suggested earlier that it be broken down into several. How about 2 or 3 threads.

!) general improvements to coops.

2) Grievence resolution

3) Vendor issues

or just make #'s 2 & 3, one separate thread

Critter - at a minimum maybe you could reserve a couple of posts at the top of your new thread to edit and keep a running summary of most talked about solutions.

The Summary is in place in the new thread. Please do not make anymore posts here. Thank You!