[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: On Second Thought . . .

[Amanda Geist]

Cindy:

> Second, I disagree that anyone can invite anyone in anytime.  Pippin
> asked whether that newbie could join, for instance, and I would have
> been unhappy had she invited that person unilaterally.

One question: Why?

> Third, I disagree that this list has always been self-governing.  When
> it was time to bring in new people a few months back, I ran everyone by
> the group.  That didn't happen this time.  And the list was certainly
> not self-governing when Elkins and I were the Mods in charge from
> October to March.  We were in charge, and we made decisions and
> consulted the group.

May I point out that, like the perception problems betwixt MEG and the
Tower, what you perceived the understanding to be may *not* have been shared
by the rest of the list? Because I never considered you to be "in charge" in
any formal or strict sense; you were just the ones rolling the ball.

Are you telling me that you and Elkins consulted the rest of the list, got
our input, and then did whatever you thought was right? That if you totally
disagreed with what the list said, you'd have done what you wanted? This was
NOT my understanding in the past and it is NOT the way I want this list run
now.

> Fourth, I disagree that we were all given Mod privileges to perform any
> Mod task we wanted, such as inviting new members.  I mean, could one of
> us unilaterally place another FAQ member on moderated status?

Then why, Cindy, does just about every member have full Mod powers here?
Even the new ones you brought on? What *were* we, and they, given the powers
for?

> Fifth, I have concerns about inviting Michelle, much the same as I had
> concerns about others who were potential candidates but were not asked.
> I can elaborate if anyone is interested.

I'd kind of like to hear. Because if they don't involve their ability to
read, catalog posts, compile FAQs, check links, or do server-y things with
completed FAQs, I don't think they're relevant or applicable.

> Sixth, both facilitators of MEG are members of this list, so I don't
> think the rationale can be that MEG needs to keep an eye on us.

*blinks in disbelief* And where did you get *that*? Why would you even
*think* that?

> I'm very sorry to have exacerbated this problem, but I do think it
> something worthy of discussing.

To be honest, I don't think you exacerbated it at all. I think you *caused*
it.

Nor do I think it's worthy of discussing. NOTHING is worthy of discussing on
this list that *so* distracts us from compiling FAQs. That, and only that,
is what this list is for. We have, once again, despite the best efforts of
several of us, been totally derailed from the project at hand to discuss
this sort of nonsense.

I'm sorry you disagree with the reactions to your unsubbing Michelle. But
the fact that those reactions were all bad should tell you something. The
thing to do would be learn from this, apologize to Michelle, invite her back
on, and get busy on FAQs.

> If the consensus of the group is that
> Michelle should join us, then we can invite her back, IMHO.

I refuse to discuss "candidates" over here too. I get enough of that on MEG
where it's a legitimate function. People want to help, they can come help.
Penny is absolutely right, as are your own words quoted by Ali. Whatever you
believed your role to be, I am by no means certain the rest of the list was
on the same page with that.

Please abide by that "IMHO" you used above, and realize that what you have
is just what the rest of us have, an *opinion,* not a final decision.

~Amanda