Governance and Autonomy

[Cindy C.]

Amanda:

> If there's any list that seems to operate well by
> consensus, it's this one (at least, when we're *active*). We are a 
>focused list with one purpose: comb the main list posts for 
>candidates for inclusion; compile FAQs. When there's questions 
about how to do something,
> we discuss. It works.

Actually, um, we've always been a BD.  I was the dictator on and off 
since October, although opinions may differ on whether I was benign 
or not.  ;-)

As BD, I handled lots of touchy interpersonal issues off-list, which 
is why FAQ members weren't burdened by them and we merrily posted 
bios and wrote silly posts etc.  Highlights include:

"Cindy, if she posts that crap again, I will scream!  *Do something!*

"Cindy, I want to work on the XXX FP, but so-and-so just joined and 
I can't work with her.  Can you smooth things over?"

"Cindy, I wrote this whole FP, and so-and-so is trying to change it 
and his changes *suck.*  Am I out of line here?"

And so forth.  

Also, my knowledge of past MEG smackdowns was useful in predicting 
which interpersonal issues required intervention and which did not.  

So yeah.  You need a leadership team.  If anything, I should have 
been doing much more over the last month or so, and I apologize for 
the resulting chaos.  It wasn't fun for me, either.  ;-)

Further, I think you need more than one person to lead.  I darn near 
killed myself last winter, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.  
Also, when Elkins was around, I had someone to bounce ideas off of, 
which was helpful.  Also, this gives FAQ members a choice of leaders 
to approach -- who knows, maybe their complaint concerns the leader 
himself.

Lastly, we need leaders who can handle discipline off-list so that 
rudeness and personal attacks are addressed and that repeat 
offenders are dealt with in a way that doesn't spoil the party here.


> About the only thing I think we'd need to elect is a 
>representative to MEG,if you want to start doing "status reports" 
>or anything.

I'd recommend the following course of action:

1.  Agree that we want a BD (does anyone want to make the case for 
democracy, BTW?).  The leaders will have unlimited powers to use 
their discretion to resolve problems in the best interests of the 
group, hopefully in a way consistent with efficiency, fair play,  
due process and the like.  They could, for instance, unilaterally 
decide whether Pippin's new member could join so that this group 
needn't debate the issue.  They would, of course, seek our input on 
many things and do their deliberations and express their opinions 
and, well, *lead* here on this list.  They would be *benign.*

2.  All leaders must be on MEG.  Having a liaison to MEG won't work 
(IMHO) because the liaison might not twigg to issues without 
knowledge of what the leadership team is coping with, and the 
leadership team shouldn't hear about MEG issues as filtered through 
the eyes of the liaison.  

3.  To select leaders, we should set up a database on this list.  
Anyone who does *not* wish to be a leader under any circumstances 
will list their name.  We will then have a list of potential 
nominees.  We will have nominations -- no one nominates themselves --
 and then a vote, with election requiring a 75% supermajority.  If 
six people run and only three get supermajorities, then we have 
three leaders.

Anyway, that's what I'd do.

Cindy