Some Thoughts on Improving Communication

[Penny Linsenmayer]

Hi everyone --

> I believe it was quite disrespectful for one member of this group to 
> invite someone in without consulting the group, to fail to announce 
> to the group that this was done and why, and to fail to address the 
> question of whether the archives had been searched to delete 
> unfortunate references to our new member.

I don't, in principle, disagree with this point.  But, I think that's
just a matter of courtesy, and I'm not entirely convinced that the
protocol has been followed consistently in the past.  If we as a group
want to agree that this is how we'll operate in the future, then
that's fine.

However, the fact remains that what you did was about 8 billion times
worse than Amanda's action.  You engaged in a *very* serious abuse of
your Moderator privileges, IMHO.  An absolutely appalling abuse of
power.  I still cannot believe that you didn't recognize this for what
it was.  *You* welcomed her, and then *you* unilaterally decided to
reverse *your* decision -- your own words.  This list is not about
YOU, Cindy.  It's about the FAQs for HPfGU.

> 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.

Well, back in the day, when *I* started this group and *I* was leading
it, that was not the way it was done.  There were a group of us who
decided we wanted to try and distill the burgeoning substance of HPfGU
posts into easily-accessible essays, which could be updated
periodically.  We divvied up the FAQs and we got down to work. 
Granted, most people didn't fulfill their entire commitment, but it
kept getting more and more out of control.  We didn't, however,
evaluate the "interpersonal, analytical and writing skills, or
interest level in the HPfGU community" before we allowed someone to
join us.  You make it sound like a job interview, for God's sake. 
This is a volunteer operation.  Period.  
> 
> 3.  Size matters.  If all of us go out and invite a pal, this group 
> will become unwieldy.

I was not aware that there were any size issues at all.  
> 
> 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.

Well, that's your opinion, but it's not binding on the rest of us.  

As far as I'm concerned, this whole "governance" issue is a huge waste
of time.  It's making things far more complicated than they need to
be.  Let's just get down to the business of writing FAQs, shall we?  
 
> 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).

Ah, yes, it all comes down to MEG again, right?  
> 
> 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.

I agree with Amanda: please remember that your opinion is no more
important than those held by the rest of us.  Therefore, unilateral
drastic action is completely unacceptable.  It's an abuse of power,
plain and simple.  If you wanted to off-list everyone to raise
concerns about Michelle, you could have taken that step, rather than
taking matters fully into your own hands.  

As you can see: I'm still quite enraged.  I'm about a nano-second away
from following Jen P right out the door.  

Could we just get back to the FAQs, please?  

Penny