OASPA is starting to get its act together, posting a concise summary of its membership procedures and making a new procedure for complaints relevant to the quality measures OASPA wishes to maintain among its members.
I think OASPA is right not to offer to police every OA journal in existence. There isn't enough money in the world. It's also a clever stance that invites additional membership.
It's not perfect, however. OASPA had a choice to make between complete transparency—of accusers, of accused, of the process—and the sort of hush-hush under-wraps procedures that invite elevated eyebrows. Obviously, I think they made the wrong decision; they'll regret it most when some half-rabid academic sends in scores of complaints and cannot be reined in by public embarrassment.
I'm not entirely happy with "cannot investigate the circumstances surrounding individual editorial decisions, unless there is evidence of systematically flawed processes," either. "Usually will not" I can understand—again, resources are finite, and half-rabid academics tend to be on about individual editorial decisions!—but if this statement is their way of saying "won't investigate the Dove Medical Press matter," then I disapprove. One excruciatingly bad editorial decision should suffice to prompt OASPA to look for systematically flawed processes.
Still, it's a decent start. I daresay someone has sent the necessary email about Dove Medical Press, though again, transparency would be a virtue here. I look forward to seeing OASPA live up to its lofty intent.