So the other day I post an e-mail to the 501tech-ny list that I belong to:
Hi everyone,
Is anyone interested in creating a closed forum for frank discussion of vendors? I’d like to keep it only for nonprofit tech workers only (verified by e-mail originating from a domain run by a 501c3). I have a ton of RFPs coming out and I want to know about other nonprofits’ experiences with their IT vendors as well as other things besides…
It seemed innocuous enough or so I thought (naively). Well I started a fairly controversial (at least to most vendors and consultants) e-mail thread. In general, it seems vendors think that we’re going to whisper behind their backs in the closed forum and use it for bitch sessions about them. Another consultant even took the absurd position that an open e-mail list was much like a peer-reviewed journal that would be more reliable in information. Hey guy, even peer-reviewed journals make mistakes. Some even claimed that were vendors to do what I proposed it would be called price fixing. These attitudes are so misguided I’ve given up trying to respond. I’m just disappointed that our reputations stand so low with our vendors and consultants that the first thing they think about a closed forum for nonprofit tech workers is how unprofessional we supposedly are.
However, most of the tech workers and rightly so, seemed to think that it was just a good idea.
You see, nonprofit tech workers have a bit of a problem. We don’t always have the time to make great RFPs nor do we have the time to know our vendors. We use software packages that are unique to our sector alone from Blackbaud’s Raiser Edge to Fund E-Z to CitySoft. Worse, we don’t have forums where the membership is comprised only of tech workers. There are no slick magazines like CIO, InfoWorld or NetworkComputing with tons of information about nonprofit software and nonprofit tech vendors. Worse, we don’t have a way to share what we do know in a private way with our peers.
What we do have are the 501tech lists hosted by NTEN. Unfortunately with our vendors also there with us, it leads to odd, stilted conversations where everyone clams up about their vendor relationships. Nobody feels comfortable sharing a frank conversation about their vendors especially with the vendor and the vendor’s competitors listening in on the conversation.
Well, it’s about to change: there’s a new NTEN affinity group that is open only to nonprofit tech workers whose e-mail addresses are originating from a .org and whose organization is a 501c3. I will personally verify your membership by calling your workplace. If you are interested in joining the e-mail group, please go to the nptechhelp sign-up page. After membership is verified, you can start posting.
Sorry, membership is limited only to nonprofit tech workers who are currently employed by a 501c3. Exceptions will be made on a case-by-case basis but only after consultation with the list. These rules I’m sure will change in the future especially if we start adding nonprofit tech workers outside the US but we’ll work that out as we go along.
And if you have any questions about this issue in general, feel free to send e-mail to abenamer['at']nonprofittechblog.org.
Loading ...
The equivalent of a 501c3 (AFAIK, though IANAL) in the UK is a listing on the Charity Commissioner’s register:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/first.asp
You could use those contact details, say for my organisation
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/showcharity.asp?remchar=&chyno=251233
to verify that people work for the organisation they say they do.
I think it’s a shame that it has to come to this, but given the current state of software designed and built for the nonprofit community, I’m not surprised by the reaction . It’s interesting how developers of closed software systems would be so opposed to their clients chatting in a closed forum. If they were confident in the quality and value of their software, then they should be able to sleep at night knowing they’ll get nothing but glowing reviews behind those closed doors.
If they want open communication, then it has to work both ways. They can learn a lot from open source projects like CiviCRM – not only is their software completely open, but their development process and wiki are completely open as well. The lines of communication flow in both directions, and the developers leading the project take note and learn from criticisms of their software. They’re not afraid of bitch sessions – they encourage it and learn from it.
Jason Ricci
The Solpath Project
http://www.solpath.org/theword
Jason,
You make an excellent point there. However, many of the posters were also open source advocates. Their take on it was that closed communities are never truly closed and that the information would eventually leak out. I think we’re willing to take that chance.
Dear Allan: As I mentioned in my recent blog article, I think that this is a good idea. And even if I didn’t, I would support freedom of speech and freedom of association on general principles. Consenting adults do not need our permission to communicate privately with each other. Warm regards from Deborah
Sorry you saw my perspective as “absurd” Allan
I didn’t say peer-review journals are bullet-proof, but that they are… reviewed by peers! Self-evident maybe, but much better than any other model of publishing the academic community has tried, and it has stood the test of time. The point is not whether mistakes are made, rather that mistakes are caught.
Please sign me up! I am a 501(c)3 full-time employee, with a .org address.
We have some interesting issues here. I actually am going to ask the list to let Deborah join simply because she’s a long-time proponent of nonprofit tech causes and she has no known specific partnerships with vendors. On the other hand, sg, aka Surya Ganguly is a manager with NPower NY.
NPower NY just like ONE/Northwest are now partnered with salesforce.com. This makes both NPower NY and ONE/Northwest less than neutral when recommending a solution. Don’t get me wrong — I’m actually going to write an article about how I’m turning into a salesforce.com fanboy but I’m a bit wary about the position of non-profit consultancies and their partnerships with big vendors. This is not because I believe that big business is bad — heck I like big vendors at times but because the nature of our list is such that it gives free competitive intelligence about products and services.
“I’m just disappointed that our reputations stand so low with our vendors and consultants that the first thing they think about a closed forum for nonprofit tech workers is how unprofessional we supposedly are.”
Exqueeze me?
How about their reputations with us? Having spent some long years dealing with vendors on behalf of a large corporation, I can’t even believe the amount of rampant incompetence, over-pricing and absurdly bad service the non-profit sector puts up with from its vendors. You’re right – we are unprofessional – because if I had let on to anyone in my last job as a web professional that I spent 5 seconds worry on what a vendor’s opinion of me was, I’d be laughed right out the room. They sell, we buy – they can’t make it work, we buy from someone else. Humanitarianism does not extend to allowing inept companies with an attitude run all over us while we worry about what they think.
I think you’re right msf123 — my unintentional bit of consciousness-raising among us nonprofit tech workers is only a start but we’re getting there.
I know this is an old, old post, but I want to put it out there that both non-profits and non-profit tech workers can benefit from the RFP Database at http://www.rfpdb.com that is a free and public place for organizations to publicize their projects as well as for vendors to find new projects to bid on. There are lots of projects listed from non-profits of all shapes and sizes and the database is always seeking more!
That’s great David. I would like for there to be an RSS feed though. Where’s the RSS love?
Allan, there IS a RSS feed: http://www.rfpdb.com/data/feed
I just tried out that feed in IE 7. It’s giving me an error :
An invalid character was found in text content.
Line: 25 Character: 65
You can try now, and thank you for bringing it to our attention that IE7 has issues with special characters in RSS feeds that no other reader that we’re aware of encounters.
The feed wasn’t malformed, IE 7 simply choked on certain characters.