Governance

[Cindy C.]

Amanda asked:

> This may be a silly question, but why the hell weren't these 
>people talking to each *other*? 

Who knows?  It's not a novel concept to have a Human Relations 
manager, though.  The fact that you had no idea I was doing this, 
though, suggests to me that I was doing all right.  ;-)


>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.

You know, some people operate that way.  I operate that way, in 
fact.  Usually.

But not everything is black and white.  Sometimes people just want a 
second opinion, another perspective, a solution.  Also, we have 
newbies and veterans here, and I can understand why some folks might 
be a bit intimidated by some of the personalities around here.

I do have to say this, though.  If we do not have someone with the 
power to handle rudeness and civility, I can tell you what will 
happen.  Person A will say something snide on this list to Person B, 
and Person B will retailiate on this list.  Or Person C will take up 
for Person B.  I would like this list to be a fun place without 
sniping, myself.  If no one has the power to discipline or even 
expel problematic individuals, I think we're setting ourselves up 
for trouble, and good people will leave.

> 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. 

See, I just can't agree.  

If someone is stepping over a line, I want it dealt with.  I want 
them to receive a warning.  If they keep at it, I want them 
unsubscribed.  I am willing to trust the judgment of our leaders on 
these matters, but I don't want FAQ to be lawless.


>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.

Maybe we have a different idea of discipline.  I mean enforcing 
standards of civility.

As far as being a group of equals, well . . . that would be 
democracy rather than a benign dictatorship.  And I've already said 
what I think about democracy.  ;-)


> 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.

Thank you.  

I never had to give out any really serious "Do it again and you're 
gone" warnings, thankfully.  I certainly addressed instances of 
rudeness by contacting individuals off-list.  And as I explained, I 
was able to head off trouble with off-list communications.

I do not mean that the leader should *police* off-list 
communications.  No, no, no.  I mean that the leader should 
privately rebuke/discipline those who cannot speak in a civil tone 
or otherwise act like adults on this list.  

I feel fairly confident that no one could lead this list if they 
lacked the power to take off-list action.  Do you really mean *any* 
off-list action?  If, for instance, the leader hears that someone is 
about to unsub and is unhappy, obviously the leader ought to be able 
to contact them off-list and buck them up.  

> 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.

I believe that if 12 people want to work on the same FAQ and if no 
one would budge, you must have someone to decide.  That would be 
your leader.

If someone misbehaves and is rude, you would need someone with the 
authority to tell them to knock it off.  The person could even be 
placed on moderated status.  The person could be ejected.  I would 
trust our leaders to handle those things.


> 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.

Well, OK.  Anyone else?


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

As Derannimer said, the result will be chaos.  Things feel chaotic 
to me right now, in fact.

And I gotta tell you, allowing people here to be as Rude As They 
Wanna Be is not going to work for me.

> 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.

Um . . . I don't understand.  I really don't.  Can you explain?  I 
was planning to put my name in the database for "Those Who Will Not 
Lead, No How, No Way."  As far as limiting selection, current MEGs 
could be leaders, and non-MEGs could be leaders and simply join MEG.

Hey, I detest governance discussions, myself.  But I am hoping this 
one will be short.  In fact, I will pop over and do a poll now.  

Cindy