Governance, and some FAQ task stuff

[Amanda Geist]

Cindy:

> 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.

>From your example, sounds to me like we need a counselor.

>Also, this gives FAQ members a choice of leaders
> to approach -- who knows, maybe their complaint concerns the leader
> himself.

This may be a silly question, but why the hell weren't these people talking
to each *other*? If I have a problem with someone, I'm going to talk to that
someone or make a choice to live with the situation. I'm not going to go
complaining to someone else in the expectation of the someone else's fixing
it.

I'm not sure that's what I want a leader *for.* Someone to be there to be
complained to when others have a problem with me? No, thanks.

> 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.

Discipline. I'm sorry. I don't think I want to be disciplined by a Leader,
either. If I step over the line, I expect to hear about it. From anyone I
offended; from anyone I hurt. But not from the Leader who is Disciplining me
so that I will be a productive worker bee again. Nope. We are a group of
equals and I'm not ready to change that.

Cindy, you may have assumed a mantle, but I for one simply considered you as
a great organizer who got things done. If you served in other capacities
offlist, thank you and I'm glad they seemed helpful, but that was offlist. I
think the business of this list stops with the list, and empowering someone
to take offlist actions is not within that scope.

I see no reason to set up a structure like this, where we can so readily be
distracted into discussions of the structure and away from our purpose. Like
this post shows.

A hierarchy is not what I'm after. I don't mind point-people or
spokespersons. But I definitely don't want a Leader to whom I am expected to
be subservient. If that's not what you meant to intimate, clarify.

> 1.  Agree that we want a BD (does anyone want to make the case for
> democracy, BTW?).

I want to make the case for dropping this discussion, getting on with
things, and seeing how things progress. If a difficult situation arises,
let's deal with it then.

My favorite example: the architect who won some award for his dorm grouping.
He built the dorms, put in the landscaping, did everything but put in
sidewalks. People pointed this out; he said to wait. Three months later
there were "wear patterns" in the grass, and that's where he poured the
walkways. They were both attractive and *effective,* because they reinforced
patterns that had been established.

So. What is wrong with getting on with the job and seeing what patterns
emerge?

> 2.  All leaders must be on MEG.

I have a problem with this, because it limits selection, and because you
will not be able to stop your leadership qualities just because you don't
wear the label. And if we end up doing this thing, you have disqualified
yourself, opening us up to problems when you can't help but want to help.

>  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.

Ah, this is too paranoid for me. If MEG wants to know more, they can ask any
FAQ member or join the list as an observer.

I think this is a giant waste of time and I applaud those who are getting
things rolling on the mechanism for nominating good posts. MEG has been
asked about our posting an ADMIN to the main list. I think we need to ask
about making a database, so we can have both mechanisms for nomination
available.

I also think someone needs to write step-by-step instructions for how you
email a nomination to the other list or whatever, because I, for one, still
don't really understand it. I need short words of one syllable or less.

~Amanda