What's our responsibility, anyways?

[bluesqueak]

Pip [who would like to point out that a lot of this is her opinion, 
and that other MEGs may hold different views]. 

> Cindy wrote: 
 
> > If truth be told, I am in a bit of a tough spot here.  You'll 
> > all recall that I was a member of MEG until I took a break in 
> > April or so, specifically advising MEG that I hoped to return.  
> > Several months have passed, so I recently asked to return to 
> > MEG.  MEG denied my request -- even though every Elf or Geist 
> > who ever left MEG and later asked to return was welcomed back 
> > with open arms, and even though many MEGs urged me to take that 
> > break in the first place.  
> 
Mel replied:
> Ok.  I do not know all the facts here, mostly because MEG seems to
> think they are the CIA or FBI and need to sign a confidentiality
> agreement before joining their super-secret operations  ::snort::, 
> but isn't an old elf or mod automatically made a geist when 
they "retire"?    

Pip:
That's one of the things we're trying to decide. But in the state of 
play at the moment, there were a few members of MEG who announced 
that they would not be participating in MEG for a while, but they 
wished to remain members of MEG, and there were other members who 
hit the 'unsub' button and removed themselves completely from the 
MEG group. Geists remain a member of the MEG group. They don't unsub 
completely.

In the very chaotic period which followed the collapse of the old 
administration, there were a number of people who unsubbed. Two of 
them asked to return very quickly, and were allowed to do so.

We have lost a lot of MEGs (from a high point of 42 members, we are 
down to 26, mostly active). The MEGs who left unsubbed completely, 
and did not ask to be given Geist status.

> 
> Cindy, I know you love the site too, but do you really want to be a
> part of a group that seems to have decided you are not wanted?
> 
> See, because that is the way MEG is, it seems to me.  They alone 
> get to choose whom they work with and who they deem worthy to 
> share in being the facilitators to the HP fandom.  And frankly, 
> when you are trying to create a team that can work together,  
> sometimes those that are able to do the job but do not get along 
> with the "right people",are booted to the curb.  That is what *I*  
> see has happened to Cindy. 

That's a good point, Mel. We do have a system right now where MEG 
alone chooses who it works with. One of the things we have to decide 
is if that system should change. That is on the agenda.

There may be one last selection of elves by the old method of 
invitation, but since MEG hasn't completed a vote on this, I can't 
confirm that yet. If there is, we have agreed to only choose people 
who have never been a member of MEG – because we want people who can 
look at our system with fresh eyes, and if necessary say: `why are 
you doing it like that?' 

Ironically, we were discussing this very subject, and considering 
whether we only wanted non-ex-MEGs, when Cindy re-applied.  By sheer 
accident, her timing was dreadful.

Mel: 
> I say that because I *know* she is highly respected by the site and
> common posters.  She has proven to be a good leader and a good 
poster.
>  What else does MEG need?  It must be a more shallow, but also
> important reason, y'all have declined to let Cindy back. 
>

Pip:
The reason given in the rejection letter is the truth. We had a very 
painful bust-up on MEG, and we are terrified that the return of any 
ex-MEG now could break open a rather fragile truce. We want to hold 
MEG together until we can create a new constitution, a new way of 
running things and have a new group of MEGs who don't have all this 
baggage to carry.

We want this because the alternative seems to be going to the main 
list and saying `we need some volunteers for List Administration 
*right now*, because the current List Admin group has just collapsed 
completely.' 
 
Cindy:
> > I anticipate that certain issues MEG will soon decide will 
> > impact the operation of this group.  Further complicating things 
> > is that MEGs consider MEG business to be highly confidential and 
> > not to be discussed with non-MEGs -- I would be unable to 
> > discuss MEG business that impacts the FAQ list with the members 
> > of MEG because I am not on MEG.  
> 
Mel:
> Now why is that, anyway?  Why can't MEG business be discussed with
> basic HPfGU citizens?  Are we not privy to the perspectives y'all 
> are?
>  Are we not to be burdened with the responsibility?  Can we not   
> make decisions based on the information y'all are too?  

Pip:
I dunno why MEG has grown this way. I think that the secrecy started 
when someone hacked into a Moderator's identity and deleted the Main 
List in its entirety.  I wasn't there – but I have been told that 
there was a very strong suspicion, and some evidence, that the 
hacker was working with a listmember that some of the Mods had 
thought of as a trusted friend. [The person referred to is no longer 
on the list, and hasn't been for some time]. Before that, Mods did 
mention mod business to listmembers, especially to friends. 

The post-deletion climate became one where you didn't discuss MEG 
business outside the group, where criticism of MEG had to be sent to 
a list that ordinary list members didn't have access to, and 
ideally, you didn't admit that you were a MEG at all [grin].

Many of you haven't been here long enough to realise how much of 
that secrecy has been relaxed from its high point. People have 
criticised Admins on the Main List, and MEGs have replied onlist, 
explaining the reasoning. There's a policy discussion going on at OT 
chatter about whether a second list is required. MEGs are joining 
in, giving the list admin view. The `banned topics' have been 
unbanned. But MEG still needs to work out where confidentiality is 
required (discussing whether a poster should be told off can be 
embarrassing when it takes place in front of 10,000 people) and 
where it isn't.

> Mel:
> Maybe I am not actually the everyday poster, but I kind of resent 
> the idea that I am not smart enough or privy enough to understand 
> the everyday dealings of MEG.  You must understand that the site 
> does talk off site.  Gossip is inevitable, mostly because we all 
> talk about what we know with our friends.  When we are concerned 
> about the state of the site, we talk about it and if we are 
> misinformed, then we try to figure what is true and what is not.  
> If our leadership does not talk to us, then we are left to talk 
> amongst ourselves and figure out *why*they are not talking to 
us.   
>  

Pip:
All too true.
   
> 
<Snip>
Mel:
> It is sad to me though that there is little leadership on this FAQ 
site.  

Pip:
I think that what you need to do is work out how you yourselves want 
FAQ to be run. Do you want an elected leadership, rather than one 
appointed by MEG? Do you want to be able to ask the MEGs on this 
list policy questions about things that may affect FAQ? And to be 
able to require us to answer? There are a large number of current 
MEGs who are also FAQers (and historically, FAQ has always been elf-
heavy). `The posts are all crap at the moment, what are you doing 
about it?' is a reasonable FAQ question. (The answer is `drowning', 
btw).

Mel:
> I just hope this hurricane did not scare away
> some on the posters I have grown to love.  It might have.  It 
> seems to have already.
> 

Pip:
A lot of us seem to be waiting out the storm in OT. We're also 
praying that this week's drop in joining rates (to almost pre-OOP 
levels) means that the surge of newbies is finally dying down.

> 
<Snip>  
> 
Mel:
> MEG does not want the site to deteriorate, but frankly, it has 
anyway.
>  There is nothing we seem to be able to do to control the duplicate
> posts or the non-clippers.  There are just too many of them.  That
> makes MEG want to add people on but they are afraid of new people 
> causing problems since they are still sore....sigh.  

Pip:
Yes, that's been true. I'll be honest; we decided against taking on 
new elves pre-OOP because we thought that you would take one look at 
our recent archives, decide we were all a bunch of back stabbing 
maniacs, and run screaming into the night. 

It's now nearly five months since the great bust up (nicknamed 
Modgate, btw), and we've made a few decisions about new elves. One 
is that we are not deleting posts from the archives (but will 
instead let them stand as a Dreadful Warning), another is that we 
are currently not taking back any old MEGs, and the final one that 
we are currently voting on is whether we are, as I said above, 
asking some new people to join. If we do it will be the swan song of 
the invitation only system. 

It's not just about workload. It's about new viewpoints. If the vote 
approves the idea of selecting new elves, we will be looking very 
seriously at the people who have *criticised* the present system.

<Snip>
Mel:
> Originally, the "grown up" part of our title
> actually meant grown-up conversations.  Now it has deteriorated to 
> not quite fan-girl giggles, which I saw enough of at Nimbus to 
> last till next HP conference, but it has taken a notch down, in my 
> not so humbleopinion.  Maybe I am bias, and maybe I am being short 
> sighted, but as for me, this is not working.

Pip:
We are all hoping that this is a replay of last summer, when list 
quality also took a very noticeable nose-dive.  Things started to 
improve September time.

<Snip>
> 
Mel:
> Now here is this list kind of a step above the main list and a step
> below the MEG list, and we are left to limbo between them.  Do 
> y'all not respect those of us that are not MEG but have to know   
> what is going on to actually do our job here properly? 

Pip:
I think we on MEG have become very inward-looking, and need the 
occasional kick from outside to tell us to *talk* to people. We know 
perfectly well that you are just as capable as us – but everyone 
currently on MEG was trained to the old climate of secrecy. And it 
catches up with us at unexpected times and in unexpected ways.

Mel:
> I for one am sick of
> all this crap and desperately want us to move on, but it seems the
> leadership *has* cracked and divided, and it so timid it is afraid 
> to decide anything for fear of hurting anyone else.  
> 

Pip:
I think it's more that we have simply not told anyone what we have 
decided. So you don't know what progress we've made, because we 
don't tell you, because we're trained to *not* tell you


Vicious circle. We don't seem to be able to escape from it.

Mel:
> But that is my assessment from outside the box.  I am not in MEG 
> and that is because they *choose* to not let me be a part of it.  
> The choices of membership is very evident on the main site, and it 
> use to be a badge of honor to be a part of it.  Now it seems a 
> chore and a politician's dream.  We are a part of the HP fandom.  
> A big part yes, but just a part.  Seems to me some have decided we 
> facilitate HP fandom itself.  Funny, I though Warner Bros. held 
> the copyrights to the whole damn thing.  

<Snip>
> 
> At least you are talking to us, Cindy.  At least we get honest
> emotions and thoughts from you and not a well crafted, carefully
> censored post from the "admin".  Guys, I know you mean well, but 
> when is this going to stop?  This is just a silly site, and it is 
> just a silly book.  Is it worth all this?  

Pip:
No, it's not, and we need to stop it.

> Mel:
> But then again, I just spent the better part of my Sunday afternoon
> writing this, so it is worth it to me.  Is this all-just power    
> going to everyone's head?  

Well, I've just spent a huge part of my day off writing this back


Pip