Committee Membership

We need to review a situation in this thread. Mark has been notified multiple times in the past that advertising his product/service is not to be done in the regular discussion groups, only in the Vendor Member or Industry News groups. While this post has good background info, the last line could be perceived as solicitation. What do you think? Note this is his second post on this thread, the first was Harvey Weinstein comment. I deleted that post. Thread in question https://90minds-com.socialcast.com/messages/37617467?ref=stream Membership rules https://docs.google.com/document/d/13mzP12arlooRFfRNGdczp6Tk2bFSzCWi_vkzUU23pkw/edit

First, I think he can be told that further solicitation jeopardizes his membership. This is a symptom of our issue with members who've been here a long time and are dual consultant / vendor. In my view those who also sell a product should be asked to become a vendor member. Off the top of my head - Mark, Gary, DSD Business Systems (who I think is a vendor member), xkzero (think they are). Just by virtue of being a member I think they drive a lot of opportunity and value and should be offered and strongly encouraged to be a vendor member. Then much of this goes away. We also don't know if anything like this goes on in private message.

Mark's been warned many times. He has gotten much better at making the content more useful and less blatantly salesy. It had gotten so bad at one point, I stopped contacting him and just deleted his posts that crossed the line.

I guess I did not read this particular message as really blatant sales effort. Not sure where the line is. Mark's goal post may be a little closer due to the past experiences but I have been sheltered from those.

Is Mark even a Sage 100 partner anymore?

I don't know, @RobertWood is he or how do we confirm that he is?

It's listed as a product on his company's website.

@ScottHickman I've deleted a lot over the years. This is subtle.

The site is old then, MAS 90/200. Seriously, is he a Sage reseller or consultant in good standing?

http://www.sageerpwire.com/story/rkl-esolutions-acquires-sage-partner-accuvar

@RobertWood I believe you. Just seems like we should hang him on something more blatent if he posts. This seemed more consulting to me - this specific post. Just my $.02.

My understanding was that he sold his Sage practice to RKL.

@ScottHickman that is why the question is being asked. I've had my run ins with Mark over this over the years so I am acknowledging that I'm too close from that side.

@DarcyBoerio good question.

@DarcyBoerio I believe Accuvar was only part of Clients First's Sage practice.

I second @ScottHickman's observation that I haven't seen many of his more blatant sales pitches in a while (thank you @RobertWood). Also like @ScottHickman, I wasn't part of previous interactions with him regarding these infractions and therefore can't gauge the level of disrespect his non-compliance demonstrates.

I think 90 Minds should go through a list of all the ""dual"" members who are both consultants and also offer a product. Then figure out how to migrate them to vendor member status. Roll this out at the MOTM meeting. Mark is a very sharp consultant on both the technical and business side of things. He hasn't participated as much lately but he does have deep knowledge of this industry that I'd hate to see the group lose. Many of his insights are spot on. He is also a founding member who I think has been on board since we went from Sageresellers to 90 Minds. Without a policy, I think 90 Minds potentially plays whack-a-mole with users (consultants) who are from firms that also resell a product through a channel or via referral.

I would be happy to send Mark and email and advise that his asking for people to contact him without him being a vendor member is forbidden and unless he is at vendor rmember status if he continues doing so the posts will likely be dropped and we'd reconsider his membership.

@WayneSchulz your recommendation regarding standardizing how to categorize dual membership is a good one. Regarding the sales pitch, I think his approach was reasonably subtle but poorly timed. If it hadn't been in context with a member sharing an update but rather asking for help, it may have been appropriate. If I had had a way to help Gary in the middle of the challenge, I would have suggested he call me directly and take it off-line. However, I wouldn't offer advice on how to avoid getting wet while he was neck deep in the hot water. I would wait until he was out, dry, sipping martini's laughing about it first.

We have had plenty of self-promotion posts from members and when they are identified, they should be quickly and consistently addressed. The subtle or not subtle self-promotion post Mark made is the initial question, since he has been notified to not self-promote. We have many ways we can handle that, and I'll address him myself, once we determine the following: Is he or is he not a Sage consultant / reseller in good standing? Clear cut, simple, yes or no. To Wayne's suggestion, and I respect the history and insight you've provided on this Wayne; if the answer to question two is no, what are the alternatives? Affiliate or out? Seems we have a third option. If Mark is a founding member of this group and a former board member, then honor it and give him a founding member membership. That is a unique and unrepeatable event, there are only so many founding members and if they are still viable contributors than let's honor it! He still must abide by the rules, though. As to hybrids, those members that are both consultant member and vendor member, it would benefit the group to reiterate the rules; I agree. I don't know that we need new rules, a review perhaps, but they seem clear. If a hybrid chooses to participate as a consultant _only_ and not cross the line (i.e., advertising in the consultant only groups), maintains all other qualifications (posts regularly, in good standing with Sage, keeps Vegas rules, etc.), then they can continue as consultant members. When/if that member does want to advertise, if they do so in the Vendor Member Solutions or Industry News, fine, that's what those groups are there for, any member, affiliate or consultant. If the consultant member wants to advertise at MOTM then they must become an Affiliate. The group, from my experience and perspective, is to help members through shared knowledge and resources without deference to a specific vendor. Hybrid members are no exception. Both hybrids and Affiliates enjoy a closer relationship with consultant members for sales prospects. Referrals and partnerships are formed from trust and respect for a product/service and the company providing them. That includes respecting group rules.

Mark is IMO a founding member. He was one of the first to participate in suggesting the formalization of the group and I think may have suggested the 90 Minds name which was picked out of a pool of maybe 1/2 dozen potential names. I don't know if he is a certified Sage 100 consultant but I doubt it. His promotion in the group doesn't bother me as much as the idea that if the group were to be contacted by a data backup firm that wanted to join as an affiliate/vendor member the new affiliate/vendor member would find themselves being ""competed against"" by one of our regular members offering a similar service who also had access to every SC group and the ability to purchase a less expensive event ticket.. At this point, the barn door is already open on the three members who I think may be in gray areas - Mark, Peter, Gary. Let's live with them being in that gray area of consultant/vendor and catch future ones in the membership process by vetting them so as to ensure they aren't more properly classified as vendor/affiliates.

When I'm contacted by vendors that sell a product/service of an existing consultant member, the consultant member is notified and given an opportunity to be an affiliate. I don't turn away a vendor unless they are not a fit or have a demonstrative bad track record. We have no formal endorsement, nor review board for vendors. Affiliates & consultant/vendors make their mark on their own reputation. I suggest we still review this, and we can continue that at our meeting today, 5:00 pm Eastern/2:00 pm Pacific. https://chismet.my.webex.com/chismet.my/j.php?MTID=m9b94bc0ff81969239ec4eafeeeba545f Meeting number (access code): 620 612 301 Meeting password: 1234