[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Some Thoughts on Improving Communication

[Amanda Geist]

Cindy:

> 1.  I understand that Michelle wished to "observe."  I do not wish
> to be observed.

I'd like to know where you got that idea. Michelle never posted that I am
aware of. I hadn't gotten around to sending my introduction of her. Were you
acting on unsubstantiated rumor?

> This is not a zoo.

Really.

> 2.  People are invited to this list, and they are invited because
> they are believed to be interested in the group, to have excellent
> interpersonal, analytical and writing skills, as well as sustained
> interest in our community.  We do not invite people if anyone in the
> group has a reasonable objection.

I would very much like to be directed to where these guidelines are written
out.

> 3.  Size matters.  If all of us go out and invite a pal, this group
> will become unwieldy.

I didn't invite a "pal." I invited someone I thought would be genuinely
useful. I'm really sorry you didn't know her, which apparently was one
reason you unsubbed her.

> 4.  We are currently discussing governance.  If we opt for
> democracy, new members will probably be selected by a vote.  If we
> go with BD, the leaders would hold a discussion and then implement
> the group's decision.  I think we should hold off on new members
> until we at least decide how we will move forward.

I am trying to move forward on FAQs. You are trying to move forward on
issues which I don't think are particularly needed and are very distracting
to this list's purpose.

> 5.  Amanda prefers a consensus form of governance where we deal with
> issues as they arise and everyone is equal; I favor BD.  Others
> favor democracy.  We are currently having a poll on the issue.

You *still* have not said whether you consider this poll to be binding, or
whether it is for gathering information on opinions. Nor have you said what
number of votes will constitute a quorum and end the poll. This is very
erratic.

> Obviously, none of us should bring in friends which could tip the
> balance of power.  I am not saying that Amanda did this, but absent
> approval of the group, I cannot agree with what Amanda did.

I totally and completely resent that implication. You have been given
several public indications of the response of the group and are choosing to
ignore them.

> 6.  Michelle's sudden appearance here on this list raises some
> serious autonomy issues.  Is the rule going to be that MEGs can come
> here any time they want, even if they will do no work, but FAQ
> members do not have the same privileges on MEG?  Personally, I
> wouldn't touch that issue with a ten foot pole.  But some members do
> have concerns about autonomy, so I think it would have been a better
> idea to consult the group before inviting Michelle because she was a
> MEG (assuming this is why she was invited).

NO. Again, you have taken action on unfounded speculation. She was invited
because she indicated an interest to me and I sincerely believed she would
help with the job of the list. Which is, I believe, screening posts and
compiling FAQs.

> 7.  Now, to the meat of the issue.  I know from my time on MEG and
> as a moderator of HPfGU that there were some issues with Michelle.
> Michelle was invited to join MEG as an elf.  She elfed once or twice
> (my memory is poor; she may never have elfed at all).  She then
> began to drop the ball, and then declared that she did not wish to
> elf.  The mod in charge of elfing was so frustrated with Michelle
> that she did not even want her on the elfing team.  She then lurked
> for a very long time, popping up occasionally to comment, but not
> doing any real work IIRC.  The moderators were resentful that
> someone would come in to perform a task and then immediately blow
> off their obligations, and we spent a great deal of time deciding
> what to do about this.  Further, I have seen little to suggest that
> Michelle is an excellent writer, has a sustained interest in the
> community, and has first-rate analytical skills.  I think if we need
> new members, there are others who are more reliable and talented
> than Michelle.  IMHO.

Oh. Okay. So you made a decision and took action based on your 1/7 of the
Moderators' viewpoint and some unfounded impressions.

May I digress to point out that you are violating the trust of the Mod group
at the time by sharing this and speaking for them? Even if you only mention
them by title and not name, you are stating their positions as absolute
fact. You could have summarized all of this neatly with "When I was a Mod
there was some concern about the quality of her elfing." You had no reason
to go into such detail, especially when neither she, nor possibly the Mod in
question are around to give any clarification or viewpoint. This is
inappropriate material for this list, or for public repetition anywhere, and
I find it irresponsible.

> I am very sorry that some of you are unhappy with my decision to
> unsub Michelle, but . . . well, I would think my opinion about a
> prospective new member (and the opinions of everyone in this group)
> would matter.

Your opinion would, does, and is noted. But you are frankly ignoring the
opinions of the others who have posted on this issue as well. You have a
opinion, no more, no less.

> So no, I won't be issuing a groveling apology after all.  If the
> group decides to invite Michelle, I will accept that decision, of
> course.

I don't know that she *would* come back, after this treatment. Have you
emailed *her* to let her know what you did and why?

Also, a clarification for non-MEGs: it is my understanding that the Mod list
(the Tower, not MEG) routinely "scrubbed" its archives before a new Mod was
brought on, removing any posts that might discuss that new Mod. MEG itself
has recently decided that it will not do this. I support this non-altering
of history wholeheartedly.

For the purposes of FAQ, I don't think it's our business to be talking about
people in that manner in the first place; there should be nothing to scrub.
I completely disagree that anyone interested should not be allowed to help
without some "screening" procedure and vote and such.

In the second place, if there has been discussion of a person, it should be
up to the poster who put the comments there to delete them, not someone
else. So I would not have searched the archives to make sure Michelle wasn't
mentioned. And I wouldn't have deleted any mention if I'd found one.

~Amanda