[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Governance

[Amanda Geist]

I said, earlier:

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

Cindy said:

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

It doesn't feel like chaos to me. It feels like large room full of people in
that "okay, let's get started" mode. Someone just needs to start the ball
rolling. Or balls. The chaos you feel is the milling around, until people
fall into motion in some direction.

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

I never said that. There will always be a certain amount of self-policing. I
don't have to be a "leader" to offlist someone who's rude on the list. If
it's egregious, I probably won't even do it offlist. And I'm willing to bet
most of our FAQ-ers feel that way. Intimidating as some of the personalities
on this list may be, none of us are exactly shrinking violets; I bet they
could gear themselves up if a need arose.

> 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."

Cindy. You can't help it. You see a need, you move to address it, you make
suggestions, you move and shake things. You will do this anywhere you are,
this is what you *do,* you are a fixer. If you are not on the leadership
team, this will create conflict. You'll have the best of intentions. They
may well misunderstand your motives. Why build the potential for this into
any system?

>  As far as limiting selection, current MEGs
> could be leaders, and non-MEGs could be leaders and simply join MEG.

MEG would have to buy in on this. MEGs are invited after deliberation (at
least that's the current procedure). I'm not saying that an elected leader
of FAQ won't be acceptable--but we can't presume that anyone we elect will
automatically be taken on.

If we absolutely *must* do this election thing, remove the MEG membership
requirement. What's wrong with a mix?

> 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.

Is this informational, or binding? If the latter, what constitutes the
minimum needed to call it a Decision? And have you gotten buy-in from this
list to abide by the poll, if it's binding?

~Amanda