Governance and Autonomy

[Cindy C.]

Hi,

First, I want to thank Dicey for giving us an overview of Modgate.  
We are now all operating on the same base of information (sort of), 
and we should all learn what we can from that debacle, I'd say.  I 
feel comfortable saying that none of us wants this list to turn out 
to be what MEG has become.  I still can't put my finger on precisely 
how and why a group of 42 MEG friends went from functioning well and 
liking each other and running the best list anywhere to being in a 
state of intermittent warfare, but once is enough for me.  

I have theories about where things went wrong and how we can avoid 
the same mistakes.  Everything I am going to say will be my own take 
on various bits of MEG history and practice, based on faded memory 
of outdated information.  Please don't quibble with me too much on 
details, but try to focus on the principles being discussed.  Also, 
I believe that all of the MEGs who are on this list believe strongly 
in the governing principles of MEG, so I will be articulating a 
minority viewpoint as I try to find my way here.  So go easy on me, 
OK?

I.  CIVILITY.

We cannot achieve anything if we do not get along.  There are people 
on this list who don't like me, and there are people on this list I 
don't count among my closest friends.  I can work with them because 
I am an adult.  If someone on this list upsets you or does something 
that you don't like, it might be best to assume the best of 
intentions and be kind and patient.  As a Moderator of HPfGU, I had 
the power to address rudeness.  That is not the case here, so all I 
can do is beg.

Further, let's check our grudges and personal animosity at the door, 
shall we?  If the three former Moderators on this list can do that, 
everyone else should be able to as well.

Lecture over.

II.  DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER!

As I see it, there are two basic ways to run a working group like 
this.  

Option 1:  Benign Dictatorship.

You elect 2-3 people to be the leaders.  They keep an eye on things, 
keep things from falling through the cracks, nudge people who are 
procrastinating, think ahead, handle interpersonal issues, work off-
list to extinguish fires, make the decision when there is a split of 
opinion, etc.  That is what we were doing on this list previously, 
more or less.

Option 2:  Democracy

Every member has an equal say in all decisions, and majority rules.  
You might have a few designated individuals to move things along, 
but no one calls the shots.  Everyone has the same amount of 
influence and power, and no one is ever disenfranchised.

Democracy sounds great, huh?  Most of us live in countries that have 
democratic governance, so the idea has appeal.

IMHO, trying to run a group like this or MEG via democracy is 
doomed, doomed, doomed.

Problems include:

1.  The Majority can be wrong or unfair.  

Majority groups can trample the rights of minority groups, so proper 
democracies have safeguards to protect minority groups.  Often, 
democracies function under an articulation of important principles 
(a constitution) as well as checks and balances.  

Imagine that in real life, the citizens of Arizona decided that all 
black people must be sent back to Africa.  This would never be 
implemented because the Constitution prohibits it and the courts 
uphold the Constitution.  The majority does not get its way because 
the majority is doing the wrong thing and is being unfair.

MEG has no such safeguards or checks and balances.  If MEG voted 
that TBAY should be banned (and yes, some MEGs have advocated that), 
then TBAY would be banned –- even though doing such a thing would be 
inconsistent with the principles that guide this list.  In contrast, 
the Moderator Team, being a benign dictatorship, simply refused to 
ban TBAY, and would have reached the same conclusion about TBAY (or 
any other style of prefixed post) even if the majority of MEGs 
disagreed.

2.  Democracy is about making list administrators feel empowered 
than about the best interests of the list.

Oooh, those are fighting words, huh?  ;-)

I think Tom's poll will be very useful in helping illustrate what I 
mean here.  Tom, feeling that certain issues were important, set up 
a poll here on FAQ.  Some people reacted badly to this.  But why?  
What harm was done?  None, as far as I can see.  So why all the 
hostility?  Beats me.  

I just think that sometimes people like to have their say, even if 
they have nothing to say.  They want to be consulted on everything.  
This strikes me as peculiar.  In my profession, everyone is expected 
to pick up balls and run with them.  Those who do not don't last 
long.  If someone takes an action without consulting someone, it 
would be considered inappropriate to object and then fail to 
identify a substantive mistake or omission in what was done.  In 
contrast, in a democracy, no one can make a move without 
permission.  

Oh, the trouble this can cause.  I remember that there were 
instances where MEGs voted "no" on a proposal because they didn't 
understand it.  There were times when interest in a proposal was so 
low that it was difficult to have a vote at all.  IMHO, becoming a 
democracy meant that MEG spent *way* too much time talking about MEG 
and not nearly enough time talking about the lists -– and preparing 
for OoP.  MEG was bogged down, not lean and mean.

I'll use Heidi's FF message of today as an example.  I would have no 
trouble had Heidi just gone ahead and posted her message without 
consulting this group.  If she would like input or is unsure of 
herself, she can and should consult this group, of course.  On the 
other hand, I decided to consult with you all before asking our 
members to advise us of Fantastic posts.  But I'd prefer that we not 
require people to consult and seek permission on simple matters – so 
long as they are mature enough to take the consequences if they err. 

3.  Democracy leads to illogical piece-meal decisions.

Democracy carries the risk that weird things will be decided because 
the group is working piecemeal rather than having one or two smart 
people develop a comprehensive strategy.

For instance, when I was on MEG, lots of people had different 
proposals for how the group was to be governed.  At some point, we 
had to find a way to take a poll that would help us determine the 
very best proposal.  Elkins and I had a very long YM in which we 
tried to figure out a polling strategy that would allow polling to 
work effectively and expediently.  

We discovered that it was not feasible to simply put each proposal 
to a vote – voters could be expected to vote against the proposal if 
they objected to any of its components.  Voting against the 
proposals individually, we felt, also wouldn't work because each 
proposal only made sense with all of its individual components.  We 
got nowhere.  

I don't know if MEG ever found a way around this problem, but I have 
my doubts.  On the question of whether MEG will add new elves now 
(or perhaps explaining why MEG had not already done so), Judy 
indicated that they will not because it takes too long to train 
them.  At the same time, it appears that MEG has decided (on a 
separate vote?) that it wants only elves with no experience.  
Somehow, these issues seem related to me, and I wonder if an 
individual tasked with sorting out personnel issues on MEG would 
have perhaps recognized that something was amiss.

3.  Democracy is a time suck.

When I was on MEG, the hope was to rule via democracy.  This meant 
that issues were raised on MEG, then there might be a straw poll to 
figure out if there was interest in the idea, then there would be 
discussion, then there would be a vote.  The voting period had to be 
long enough to allow everyone to think things over and then vote.  
The polling options had to be to everyone's liking, so drafts of the 
polls were floated.  There was once a poll to decide how what 
percentage was required before the measure passed.

In contrast, in a benign dictatorship, someone has an idea and 
either just executes it if it is a simple matter, or more often than 
not, just raises the issue in the group with a "I'm going to do this 
tomorrow if no one objects."  If someone fails to object, they won't 
usually say, "Hey, how come no one waited for me!"  If a serious 
problem is identified with the action taken, it is simply fixed.

4.  This is a fun hobby, not a small nation.

MEG has been discussing how MEG will govern MEG for 4 months now, 
and there is no end in sight, I believe.  I didn't come to this list 
to grind through complex discussions about governance.  I came to 
write FPs.  Benign dictatorship will save us a huge and protracted 
governance discussion.

After all, I can't think of a single successful corporation that 
uses a form of democracy to make decisions.  I smile at the idea of 
Ford Motor Company gathering everyone in the cafeteria to vote on 
whether to recall a vehicle.  No, successful groups run as lean and 
mean as possible.  Everyone doesn't get input into everything, and I 
would think that is even more important given that HPfGU is just a 
pleasant diversion and none of us wants to devote our lives to it.

Abigail wrote:

>I see no meaning in claiming that FAQ is or 
>is not independant from MEG.  Ignoring the fact that half our 
>members are MEGs, what control does that list exert over us?  
>Really?  What meaning would our so-called independance have? 

Actually, those are good questions and are very difficult to 
address.  I know this because Amy and I struggled with them when we 
discussed autonomy.  

To elaborate, one thing that concerned me was that Amy seemed to be 
saying that (going from memory) FAQ members are list administrators 
in a sense, kind of, sort of.  To me, this raised the possibility 
that all or some of MEG believed that its personnel policies might 
apply to the FAQ list.  

For instance, many MEGs seemed to like the idea of six-month term 
limits for MEGs.  You know, make it so that list administrators were 
less entrenched, give others a chance, get a fresh set of eyes.  
Term limits, IMHO, would be a terrible idea for FAQ, as we don't 
want people to drop projects because their time is up before their 
work is completed.  Also, FAQ work requires people who are excellent 
writers, so the talent pool is much smaller.  But if MEG were to 
decide that term limits were necessary on both FAQ and MEG 
because "it's the HPfGU way of life," I suppose they could decide 
that and impose that upon us if the majority of MEGs wished to do so.

The issues, then, are both difficult to grasp, hypothetical in 
nature , yet threatening to FAQ list members nonetheless.  Obtaining 
some clarity on it would be nice, but I have no idea how to frame 
the issues.

I do have one thought, though.  We could flip this problem around 
and look at it backwards.  We could envision what an ideal MEG/FAQ 
relationship would be, and then try to get as close to that as we 
can.

In my mind, an ideal relationship would be symbiotic, and MEG would 
know what was going on at FAQ, and vice versa.  This should reduce 
miscommunication and enhance trust.  If MEG wants a second opinion 
or can't find a solution to a problem, they should feel free to 
consult with FAQ members off-list for a fresh perspective and use 
FAQ as a resource.  If one group is overwhelmed, perhaps they could 
delegate to volunteers on the other list.  

The alternative, I fear, is that the trust issues will overwhelm 
us.  I sense a feeling that some FAQ members believe that the mere 
presence of many MEGs on FAQ means that the lines of communication 
will be open and there is no issue to address.  I don't think that 
is true at all, largely because the MEGs on the FAQ list are 
inundated and do not have time to monitor this list closely and 
issue-spot for us.  Also, MEG has (I believed) beefed up its 
confidentiality expectations and its members feel constrained in 
what they can say about MEG business.  

For that reason, I think that the way to address the autonomy issue 
is to have the FAQ list leader/leaders be members of MEG.  If the 
leaders are not members of MEG, then they would need to join.  And 
if MEG refuses, well . . . then I don't know what to say.  

This suggestion would mean two things:  (1) if autonomy is something 
that concerns us, we might be better off having a benign 
dictatorship in which our leaders know what is going on with MEG, 
and (2) I can't be a leader of this group.

OK.  I've said a lot of harsh things about MEG, I know.  But as I 
said, I still find it amazing that a group of friends -- the 8 mods 
and then the 42 MEGs -– could find themselves with all of these 
problems in so short a period of time.  Is the problem the people 
involved or the process?  Well, it's probably a bit of both, if 
truth be told.  But I can't help thinking that the current problems 
on the list and on MEG are more the result of choosing democracy and 
all of its disadvantages.

So can we just elect some leaders, see if MEG will accept them, and 
then get back to work?  

Cindy -- just tossing out ideas