Whoa, keeping up to date!

[Tom Wall]

First off, I'd like to apologize for setting off this mess and 
hitting the road – when I posted the other day, I was frustrated by 
the lack of progress that we've been experiencing lately. When my 
request for clarification on what our `actual responsibilities' were 
was met with a flurry of responses indicating that we really couldn't 
move forward until MEG made some kind of decision, I decided that 
enough was enough.

So, at someone's suggestion, I followed it up with a poll. 

Now, (and this is meant especially to Amanda and Abigail,) it's 
*just* a poll, you guys. It seems to me like you're taking this way 
out of proportion, and responding with critical accusations 
of `divisiveness' and so forth. 

Abigail asked whether or not she should `dignify' the poll with a 
vote, and what I would do if only a few people voted. I'd do nothing, 
that's what – the purpose of the poll was to see what people thought. 
If people think nothing, then there's not much that can be done, is 
there? 

Either way, I don't see how protesting the `poll' is very helpful. 
That's like saying that it's better 'not to ask' about such things. 
If you don't want to vote, then don't, although I'm sure that you 
must see that avoiding the poll is basically unhelpful as well... 
after all, as Morgan so eloquently posted, there are many legitimate 
points to be discussed, for those who can contain the theatrics. 

And I'll remind you both that I have been neither sarcastic nor 
insulting to either of you, and I hope that you'll keep the tone 
less `irritable' in the future.


Now, a few other points:

Heidi wrote:
"I have an argument against complete independence, and it's entirely 
technical.

The faqs are hosted on hpfgu's server, which has had its hosting fees 
thru the end of the year and a little beyond paid for by the mods of 
hpfgu. Complete independence, to me, means that they wouldn't be 
hosted there anymore.

Now, some of you might be perfectly happy withthat situation in 
theory, but practically speaking, if that approach was adopted and 
the faqs were hosted elsewhere, the faq writers would have to be more 
careful about quoting without getting permission from the posters - 
there is, iirc, a license to hpfgu to use post content in the faqs, 
at least for any posts generated since august, 2000, but there's no 
such license to a group operating separate from hpfgu."

Tom replies:
Heidi, thank goodness we have you here for legal-speak. Good point – 
sorry that I was unclear.

I understand that you may interpret `independence' as something akin 
to `a complete severance.' 

I want to point out that, although I understand how this could be 
your reaction, you must agree that I'd be a buffoon for proposing 
such a thing. Our job would be reduced to searching for Fantastic 
Posts from... where? If you like `autonomy' then that's fine by me... 
I'm not going to get bogged down in specifics. What I *meant,* 
however one prefers to word it, is that we shouldn't have to wait 
around for MEG to make a decision for us to get to work. On that note:


Pip wrote:
Like Abigail, I'm not sure *how* FAQ could be completely autonomous. 
A 'hands off' policy, where we decided that as far as possible we 
would not interfere with the way you run things, has actually been 
in operation for a while. Again, the problem is probably that we 
forgot to tell you ;-)

Tom sighs a sigh of relief and heartily replies:
Brilliant! This is what I was looking for when I asked what we were 
responsible for a while ago. 

In other words, we don't have to wait around for MEG to decide 
anything in order for us to get cracking. Excellent!

I'm already signed up for the Death Eaters and Aurors FAQ, which 
after OoP, I'm convinced should be distilled out from each other. I 
know that listees tend to talk about these things together, but we 
now have ample information on the Aurors and the MoM that should go 
into a `Government' FAQ, IMHO, and plenty of other stuff on 
Voldemort's forces o' doom.


One final thing on the Issue-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named: I know that 
some would prefer to bury the whole governance thing and let it drop –
 but I really enjoyed Morgan's exhortation to the contrary, and I am 
also of the mindset that anything deliberately buried will fester 
anyways, and eventually result in the same distress we sought to 
avoid by burying the whole thing in the first place. As Dumbledore 
and Harry teach us, it's better to call things by name, as fear of 
the name only increases fear of the thing itself. 

And why anyone should have either fear or irritation over an internet 
group is beyond me.

Let's talk about it, civilly, and figure out what the group wants to 
do. Just so y'all know, I'm not going to take it personally, or get 
saddened or scared away from some acerbic tongues – I love a good 
debate. ;-)

-Tom