Some considerations about the current situation

[Morgan D.]

Sorry for this, but I thought I *should* say it. This is simply my 
opinion, and I figure that if I don't say it myself, it will never be 
known, and other people might take my silence as approval of this or 
that side and start speaking for me without really consulting me. I 
wouldn't want that.

I do understand why many people here are eager to forget the whole 
governance issue and get back to work. On the other hand, I do 
believe that this is a huge mistake. The matter is delicate and 
unpleasant to deal with, but ignoring it now will only cause it to 
explode later. There's clearly a considerable amount of animosity 
here, and I can see that only from the few that *have* posted their 
opinions. If the others are silent, I don't reckon it's safe to 
assume that they don't feel as strongly, no matter to which direction 
they're leaning to. All too soon we're going to stumble in another 
issue involving "hey, you don't have the right to do this!" or "who 
are you to tell me such thing?" or "can't someone do something?" and 
we'll be back to this same hole. Only it's likely that the degree of 
animosity will have escalated even more then. 

It's understandable that the people involved in what you call the 
Modgate aren't happy at all with the idea of reliving it here. I 
obviously don't know a thing about what happened but, the way I 
understand the HPfGU structure, it just wasn't possible for this 
group not to be affected by it. The FAQ isn't independent, FAQ used 
to work in close contact with MEG (by having a leader from MEG), and 
we also have a considerable number of MEGs and former MEGs here. 

Now Cindy feels she can't give us proper leadership anymore and have 
stated her reasons. I happen to agree that this group needs a leader, 
and a leader who is indeed a member of MEG. The more I observe the 
works of this group, the more I realise it needs the contact with MEG 
to work properly. 

How should this leader be chosen? Before addressing this, I should 
say that I was born in 1973, during the administration of General 
Emílio Garrastazu Médici, the most ruthless of our military 
presidents during the dictatorship in Brazil. It was the time of 
the "Institutional Act #5", which basically eliminated civil rights. 
Anyone could be arrested anywhere, at any time, for any duration, 
without any need of formal charges... I turned 16 (minimum age to 
vote) in 1989, just in time to vote for the first direct election for 
president after the end of the dictatorship. So I tend to consider 
democracy, although a problematic system for many reasons, something 
sacred.

But running a country and running a working group are entirely 
different things. Before a few days ago I had no idea MEG worked as a 
democracy. Now I start to understand why it's been so hard to solve 
the problems concerning the Main List. Again, this is simply my 
humble opinion, but I do think democracy has tremendous setbacks that 
make it incompatible with the dealings and procedures of a working 
group. In my opinion, a benign dictatorship would be the only way to 
go. 

Which takes me to something someone brought it up a while ago. Wasn't 
this group an "anarchy" before? I'd say, no, no way. "Anarchy" was 
the poetic, friendly description the former leader used to explain 
her leadership methods. In fact, the way I understood it, she trusted 
the members' common sense. That was why we were trusted with 
moderator status, so we could have full access to the database and be 
able to modify the files when needed. The FAQ isn't, to my 
understanding, a discussion group like the other HPfGU lists; we use 
a yahoogroup as a tool to keep a working team in communication and 
with access to all the files we need to deal with. Being a moderator 
didn't imply, in these circumstances, that I'm entitled to go to the 
management sector and do whatever I want. That's common sense.

And this is when I have to say that I think Cindy was being very 
naive. Common sense, despite the name, isn't common at all. Common 
sense is actually something outrageously rare. Unfortunately, some 
people must be *told* that playing with knives is dangerous, and some 
people will keep on doing it even after that, and will keep on doing 
it even after having a finger cut off. There are circumstances where 
a working team does work splendidly with just common sense to guide 
the members, but those require (at least) excellent communication and 
mutual trust. And so shortly after a Modgate, I think it's safe to 
assume that we have neither. Those might be (hopefully *will* be) 
restored at some point in the future, but not so soon.

And I'm sorry, but it's also my opinion that inviting someone to join 
the group without consulting the group and right in the middle of a 
governance debate isn't exactly common sense. In fact, inviting 
someone to join without consulting the group was neither democracy 
nor benign dictatorship (since as far as I know *no one* was elected 
dictator here yet), and it certainly wasn't consensus either. I'm 
sure I'd have been terribly criticised if I had used my moderator 
status to invite my sister to the group without consulting anyone. 
The way I see it, giving me moderator status was a gesture of trust, 
and abusing that status would have been a breach of trust. I don't 
think anyone here was invited in a whim. I just have to look around 
and see the high-quality posters around me to figure there was some 
well-thought selection before bringing us over here, and I used to 
see my inclusion as some huge (and possibly undeserved) praising. So 
it was clear to me, without ever being told, that if I wanted to see 
someone else here, I'd have to make sure this person is up to the 
task, and I'd *definitely* have to consult the group about it. 

Anyway, I think this incident proves that this group needs to have 
its rules established more clearly. We need to know what we can and 
what we can't do, and what are the correct procedures to invite new 
members, edit the files archived here, upload new material to the 
database, communicate with outsiders and the HPfGu sister groups, 
etc. Or else all too soon someone else will do something one third of 
the list considers wrong, another third considers right, while the 
remaining third wisely ducks to avoid being hit by the crossfire, and 
we'll have unpleasant on-list quarrels again. Maybe it's just me, but 
I'd rather deal with the problems now than postpone them to next 
time, when they might get even bigger and impossible to solve.

Just a final note: in my opinion, and contrary to what others have 
said here, part of the job of a leader *is* dealing off-list with 
matters of personal disagreements between members. I've never seen 
any team of any kind being properly led without that kind of 
diplomacy being dealt in private by the leader. I wouldn't expect 
anything less from a leader, and I know that's what people expect 
from me whenever I'm trusted with any sort of leading position. I 
don't really understand how things could be any different, as a 
matter of fact. I thought that was how MEG used to deal with problems 
between members, actually -- I remember when a MEG message leaked to 
the Main List by mistake with a strong complaint against Steve Bboy; 
I trust the matter was settled by the MEGs with the people involved, 
away from the other members' eyes. I assume the same has happened 
over and over again, making sure the groups could go on with their 
proper activities without suffering any significant stress. I don't 
see why the FAQ leader(s) would have any less responsibility. 

Thank you for taking the time to read this,

Morgan