I propose...

[Tom Wall]

Man, I've been off for a while, and come back to find this whole 
discussion. Good grief, and I just love controversy, too. ;-) 
Although there have been lots of excellent points made, I'll only 
cover a few.


Melody wrote:
<snip some wonderful observations>
But- we do not vote on MEG members. We are subject to those that pick
and choose to be a part of it by other people. Some are oldies that
have not posted since *I've* been here and that is a year. I do not
know those people, but they act as if I am a newbie and thus unable 
to determine what is best for this site.

I reply:
Melody, I could not agree with you more. 

Frankly, on that note, I can't see why MEG should have *any* input 
at all regarding how the FP group works - in many cases, the MEG 
group seems totally irrelevant to the main list itself, nevermind 
the deliberations of this group. 

And if you think about it, to allow the MEG's any say over what 
we're doing is, in a sense, like the government telling the press 
what to print. 

No, I'm of the opinion that the FAQ group should be autonomous, and 
if others think similarly, then I'd advocate taking steps 
immediately to ensure that there will be no interference.


Amanda wrote:
MEG is not a social club, casting it as one is inaccurate, 
Cindy is not a pariah in anyone's mind but her own, and if anyone 
wants information about what MEG's doing, all they have to do is ASK.

Tom replies:
Now Amanda, that's not exactly true. I understand that you guys must 
be overworked and stressed out due to the OoP release, but let's 
face it – I wrote the MEG list an absolutely *humungous* e-mail full 
of questions and comments on your "operating procedures" on July 
first, and I have yet to hear back on it. To be fair, I did get a 
brief note from Ali, which told me that my questions were heard and 
would eventually be answered. 

That was over a month-and-a-half ago, and there's been no subsequent 
response. I know you've all got a lot to do, and I understand that 
this is supposed to be fun for y'all, and that y'all are volunteers 
and all that stuff. However, as I pointed out in that same e-mail, 
whether or not you volunteered, you still agreed to take on the job. 
And that job is not getting done. And just because y'all are 
volunteers doesn't mean you're exempt from criticism. 

Because *that's* how I perceive the behavior of the MEG's, whether 
I'm privy to your group's inner-sanctum discussions or not.


Abigail wrote:
All I know is that I've been asked to participate in the FAQ list - 
to use the term in its loosest possible meaning, that's my job.

Tom:
Totally, one-hundred percent agreed!


Pip wrote:
On the whole, I personally see FAQ as a semi-autonomous task force, 
free to decide for itself how and by whom its work is organised.

Tom replies:
Since I'm already inclined to see it this way, I think that's a 
great point, Pip!

So, in the interests of getting to work, my thinking is along these 
lines: the MEG group is dealing with too many of its own internal 
issues and fragile truce-type-melodramatic-whatevers right now to be 
of any real relevance (or, for that matter, help) to our operation. 
As far as I'm concerned, they'll only slow down the procedure 
further, since they're already overworked and trying to cope with 
the stuff they have to do. So let's just nevermind adding more to 
that; otherwise, we might as well postpone any action at all for the 
next six months or so.

Therefore, (and despite the fact that I'm an unqualified newbie who 
probably has no right to propose the following,) I hereby propose 
the following:  ;-)

1) To solve all of these issues, the FAQ group should take whatever 
steps are necessary to separate itself *formally* and *completely* 
from any and all MEG governance, so that it functions more like the 
Lexicon than the HPfGU main-list. In other words, MEG should have 
ZERO input on the FAQ list. Period.

2) The FAQ group should elect a leader whose responsibility will be 
to act as a de-facto chair for the group – to organize us, help us 
designate our tasks, and help us to clarify our responsibilities. 
This person will serve at the pleasure of the group at large, again, 
regardless of the desires of MEG.

(I hope it's clear that I'm making a distinction between MEG as-a-
group, and individuals on this group who overlap.)

I nominate Cindy as our leader, because she has demonstrated serious 
know-how, admirable enthusiasm, and definite willingness to do the 
work. I can think of no more qualified candidate.

As far as I see it, we can't wait around for some other disoriented 
group to decide our fate for us, so we should take matters into our 
own hands.

I, for one, am eager to get to work, particularly before I lose 
steam. ;-)

-Tom