From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  1 03:43:57 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 03:43:57 -0000
Subject: MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bnsfch+d2gu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnva5t+bn50@eGroups.com>

Tom wrote:

> -Juan Rodriguez is a past nominee, but we can't find any 
> information on him. Phyllis has seconded him. <snip> -boyd.t.smythe 
> (AKA Remnant) - Apparently requested membership previously, 
> although we can't seem to find any record of that, or of his 
> rejection. He's been seconded by Phyllis. <snip> -Carolyn White 
> AKA a_reader2003) ? requested membership ? She has 
> been seconded by Abigail and Phyllis. 

Erm, I didn't exactly second these individuals - I said that I didn't 
know them but thought that if someone was willing to help us out, I 
was in favor of asking them to join.

Tom:
 
> -Kelley Thompson is an ex-member of MEG.

Just to clarify - Kelley is a current member of MEG.  I'm not clear 
on why it's relevant to point that out, but if it is, perhaps I 
should let you know that I am a current member of MEG as well (as is 
Kirstini).  

I would second Kirstini's nomination.  And I definitely think we owe 
Kelley a response.  Sooner rather than later, if possible.

~Phyllis




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  1 03:57:35 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 03:57:35 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bnu5d3+chnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnvavf+mmti@eGroups.com>

Ali wrote:

> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I  meant ask Kelley whether she wanted to 
> write FAQs and or be a webpersonage. That would seem to be a 
> separate issue to whether she comes on board with Carolyn.

I second this idea.  In fact, if we haven't yet done so, I think we 
owe everyone who has expressed an interest in joining a brief "Thanks 
for your interest, we're deciding whether to expand the group right 
now" response so that they don't feel as if we've been ignoring 
them.  I'd be happy to send such a response if others agree.

~Phyllis




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Nov  1 14:30:36 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 09:30:36 -0500
Subject: ADMIN/ MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bnva5t+bn50@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000101c3a084$b7a866e0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Phyllis wrote:
 
>>>>>>>>Just to clarify - Kelley is a current member of MEG.  I'm not
clear 
on why it's relevant to point that out, but if it is, perhaps I 
should let you know that I am a current member of MEG as well (as is 
Kirstini).  
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Tom can speak for himself (I'd bet Tom simply confused Kelley's status
as an "ex-Mod" as stated in ["Insert New Title Here]" with her status on
MEG), but Phyllis' post raises an issue I think ought to be discussed.
Over the last few days, several people have claimed that this or that
piece of information is "not relevant," as though to suggest that the
person sharing the piece of information had erred in doing so.  
 
This may be due to a difference in approach to membership discussions
like this.  In my experience, these discussions are most productive if
they are free-flowing.  You know, "Oh, hey.  This person left MEG but
has still been active."  Or "This person called me and said he would
love to join to be our webmaster."  Folks should be free to provide
whatever factual information they want within reason; we are all
different, so different information will be important to different
people for different reasons.  In other words, each of us should feel
free (and probably should feel obligated) to say whatever we know about
the candidate so that others can decide.
 
Therefore, I think it is relevant and very helpful for all of us to
speak freely without worrying someone will challenge various factual
statements as "not relevant."  It does tend to chill the free-flowing
nature that a discussion like this ought to have - giving it almost an
adversarial, courtroom feeling.  Indeed, a few people cited Kelley's
experience on MEG as a bonus without anyone suggesting that her status
as a MEG is irrelevant.  I really don't think there is any reason for
anyone to be quite so very defensive about the subject.  Furthermore, I
think we should be mindful that autonomy issues may come up here from
time to time, so it is only natural for a member's MEG status to come
up.
 
Lastly, a history lesson.  Just so we are all clear, our resident MEG
members are (with an asterisk for MEGs who joined with the most recent
round of new elves):
 
 
Abigail*
Ali
David
Dicey
Amanda
Debbie
Eloise
Phyllis*
Pippin
Jim
Jo*
Joy
Paul
Melody*
Maria*
Mike
Carol
Kimberly
Pip
Marina
Steve
Sheryll
Tabouli
 
The former MEG members are 
 
Cindy
Gwen
Heidi
Penny
Porphyria
Elkins
Barb
 
Our never-been-on-MEGs (let's call them our "virgins," shall we  <veg>)
are:
 
Caius
Gail
Charis
Eileen
Morgan
Naama
Eric
Derannimer
Tom
 
 
Kirstini, as I understand it, is a new MEG and has been proposed for
candidacy on FAQ.
 
 
No need to thank me.  It's the least I could do!
 
 
Cindy - who thinks the non-MEGs should challenge the MEGs to game of
kickball
 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Nov  1 14:43:39 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 14:43:39 -0000
Subject: Databases
Message-ID: <bo0gqr+bj1v@eGroups.com>

Hi,

The maximum number of databases we can have is 10, and we have 10.  
Should we do anything about this, and if so, what?

Proactive!Cindy




From elfundeb at comcast.net  Sat Nov  1 15:25:14 2003
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:25:14 -0000
Subject: Databases
In-Reply-To: <bo0gqr+bj1v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo0j8q+pv4f@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The maximum number of databases we can have is 10, and we have 10.  
> Should we do anything about this, and if so, what?

Here's what I think we should do:

1.  Fold Diamonds in the Rough database into the Fantastic Posts 
database.

2.  Fold Fantastic Posts Team Assignments database into Fantastic 
Posts List and Status database, which just needs one extra column to 
note current project assignments.

Why do we need more databases?

Debbie




From elfundeb at comcast.net  Sat Nov  1 15:37:02 2003
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:37:02 -0000
Subject: FP Status Reports
In-Reply-To: <bnpfkj+qv1d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo0juu+5asv@eGroups.com>

I suggested during the week that it would be a good thing to provide 
periodic status reports.  It's not an effort to nag people, but 
rather to figure out where we are, what kind of progress is being 
made, and what kind of help people need.

However, I buried it in a post with an ADMIN prefix, so I'm repeating 
the request here, along with answers to date:

I wrote:

> I'll start by saying I'm working on Aurors and updating 
Government.  
> I have culled the enchilada for relevant posts, as well as pulled 
up 
> some relevant threads from outside the period covered by the 
> enchilada, and begun to go through them.  I've been keeping my eye 
> out for new relevant posts.  I've even written a whole paragraph.  

Jo (too modestly) wrote:

All I'm doing right 
> now is trying to re-work the Weasley family FP which is badly out 
of 
> date. 

Cindy: 

I recently committed to do the "Mysteries" FP, and
> I'll almost certainly start from scratch.  I have done no work, and
> had hoped to get some ideas before getting started.

We also know that Tom has been very busy culling messages for the DE 
FP and Abigail produced a draft outline for Harry.  I know that Ali 
has prepared a preliminary draft of the Quidditch FP.

Anyone else have a report?  

Debbie




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Nov  1 15:49:29 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:49:29 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Databases
In-Reply-To: <bo0j8q+pv4f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000501c3a08f$bc34a4c0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
Debbie asked:

>Why do we need more databases?


Debbie, I have no idea if we need more databases and I didn't mean to
imply that we did.  I apologize if I was not clear in my message.
 
I think it is generally a good idea in a group like this to think ahead
whenever possible.  Kind of like driving - just keeping a lookout for
what obstacles might turn up in your path.  
 
Tom, in particular, has made good use of the database section of the FAQ
list.  But we have reached the Yahoo limit of 10 databases, so rather
than wait for Tom or someone else to hit a roadblock when they need a
database, the better approach might be to deal with this issue now.
 
Or not.  I guess we could wait for it to become a problem, if that's how
we wish to handle it.
 
Cindy
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Nov  1 15:45:36 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:45:36 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] FP Status Reports
In-Reply-To: <bo0juu+5asv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3a08f$31692e10$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hey!
 
Yeah.  Status reports.  
 
Can I suggest instead that we do "Progress Reports?"  See, a Nov. 1
status report can be "I'm working on the Luna FAQ."  A December status
report could be "I'm working on the Luna FAQ."
 
More useful, I would think, would be a *Progress Report* that states
what progress has been made since the last report.  So a Nov. 1 Progress
Report could be "I'm just now starting the Luna FAQ."  The Dec. 1
Progress Report could be "I'm halfway through my outline on Luna and
hope to post it here."  A Jan. 1 Progress Report could be "I drafted the
introduction, but I have to work on my thesis now so I won't be doing
much this month."
 
That will also save us lots of repetitive "Yeah, I'm still doing FAQ X,
Y and Z" month after month.
 
Just MHO.
 
Cindy 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From joyw at gwu.edu  Sat Nov  1 15:59:03 2003
From: joyw at gwu.edu (- Joy -)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 10:59:03 -0500
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
References: <1067573452.539.15079.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <158301c3a091$12480e00$2d0efda1@Joy>

Cindy wrote:
<<I really think our priority ought to be rounding up a replacement for
Porphyria>>

I know this isn't the main point of the discussion, but I've volunteered
several times to do any technical stuff that is necessary, and never got a
response.  I'm assuming that you're referring to the tech stuff that she
did, but I could be wrong.

~Joy~




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Nov  1 17:47:23 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 12:47:23 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <158301c3a091$12480e00$2d0efda1@Joy>
Message-ID: <000c01c3a0a0$34cbf860$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi!
 
Joy wrote:
 
>>>>>>>>>>>I know this isn't the main point of the discussion, but I've
volunteered
several times to do any technical stuff that is necessary, and never got
a
response.  I'm assuming that you're referring to the tech stuff that she
did, but I could be wrong.
 
>>>>>>>>>>
 
Porphyria is probably the best person to address this, but I recall that
she served in several capacities.  She helped out with tech issues in
the administration of the FAQ list itself.  Joy and several others did
this as well, and it was (and is) much appreciated.
 
Porphyria is also our official webmistress, meaning she designed the web
pages and uploads changes and, er . . . . I have no idea what a
webmistress does, really.  But whatever it was, Porphyria was the
go-to-gal, if you will.  I know she had Magical Software for doing
things like converting all the links in a document so they didn't have
to be formatted manually.  Or something.  
 
Joy, if you want to take over the webmistress part of Porphyria's
duties, I for one would think that was terrific news.  And if you
volunteered before and I overlooked your offer to take over for
Porphyria, I really do apologize.  It most definitely wasn't deliberate.
 
Cindy
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Nov  1 18:15:02 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 18:15:02 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:   Databases
In-Reply-To: <bo0j8q+pv4f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo0t76+u87f@eGroups.com>

Debbie suggested:

> Here's what I think we should do:
> 
> 1.  Fold Diamonds in the Rough database into the Fantastic Posts 
> database.
> 
> 2.  Fold Fantastic Posts Team Assignments database into Fantastic 
> Posts List and Status database, which just needs one extra column to 
> note current project assignments.

Hey, I had an idea this morning! 

I think it is possible to move databases rather than delete or combine
them.  We do have a second FAQ list.  Perhaps a tech type could figure
out how to move some of the databases to the other list?  We did this
on the main MEG list (we had a second MEG list as well) when we ran
out of database space, although I don't recall whether we moved things
or what exactly.

Which databases?  I dunno.  Not all of us are members of the other FAQ
list, so that could be an issue.  

Can we operate on the assumption that people who created databases
don't have any objection if their databases are tinkered with?  In
other words, if anyone objects to having anything done with their
database, maybe this would be a good time to speak up.  Can we also
agree that database space here will be first-come-first-served,
you-snooze-you-lose for the most part?

Cindy




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  2 01:16:52 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 01:16:52 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/ MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <000101c3a084$b7a866e0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bo1lu4+lk8b@eGroups.com>

Cindy wrote:

> Over the last few days, several people have claimed that this or 
> that piece of information is "not relevant," as though to suggest 
> that the person sharing the piece of information had erred in doing 
> so.  <snip> Therefore, I think it is relevant and very helpful for 
> all of us to speak freely without worrying someone will challenge 
> various factual statements as "not relevant."  It does tend to 
> chill the free-flowing nature that a discussion like this ought to 
> have - giving it almost an adversarial, courtroom feeling.

Just to clarify - I was not in any way attempting to chill the 
discussion, impose an "adversarial, courtroom feeling" or assert that 
Tom had erred in pointing out a person's MEG status.  I didn't say 
that it wasn't relevant, I just said that I wasn't sure why it was.  
I was (and still am) confused about why a person's MEG status is 
relevant to whether or not they would be able to make a valuable 
contribution to FAQ.  Frankly, I feel that it's adversarial and 
discussion-chilling to say that we shouldn't raise questions about 
why a certain point is relevant.

If someone could explain to me why a person's MEG status is relevant 
to whether or not they should be asked to join FAQ, I would most 
appreciate it.  

~Phyllis




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sun Nov  2 03:56:20 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:56:20 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/ MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bo1lu4+lk8b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000301c3a0f5$46b1e080$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Howdy!
 
Phyllis:
 
***************
 
>If someone could explain to me why a person's MEG status is relevant 
>to whether or not they should be asked to join FAQ, I would most 
>appreciate it.  
 
**********************
 
Sure.  I'll do my best.
 
As a general matter, I think it is always useful to know who everyone is
and to understand the personal and working relationships in our
community.  Whether someone is on MEG can be relevant to questions that
come up on this list.  One recent example is when Amanda told us all to
table our discussion of the FAQ list scrubbing policy.  Her instruction
would make no sense to someone who did not recall she was a MEG.
 
More specifically, though, I happen to think that someone's MEG status
can be relevant to membership decisions.  (I assume, BTW, that we do not
have an open membership and never have - if we are an open membership,
then my remarks may not apply.)  
 
First, we can look to someone's behavior on MEG in deciding whether
their presence on FAQ would cause harmony or discord.  If someone has
been abrasive on MEG or has otherwise behaved inappropriately there, I
would think we should take that into account in evaluating their
petition to join us.  This is especially important now that no one is in
charge here and we have no means of discipline -- recall that in the
past the Moderators in charge of the FAQ list could have dealt with
disciplinary matters, and I did do this (with a very gentle hand, mind).
In Grey Wolf's case, for instance, I know him from the lists, but I do
not know him from MEG because our MEG tenures did not overlap.
Similarly, some of my issues with Michelle concern her behavior on MEG,
both when I was a Moderator and post-Modgate.  It would make no sense to
ignore someone's questionable behavior on MEG in evaluating a candidate,
and this requires knowledge that the candidate is on MEG.
 
Second, my preference in selecting new members is to favor non-MEGs over
MEGs, for several reasons.  Any veteran (pre-Modgate) member of MEG who
is not a member of FAQ has already declined several recruiting pleas
from Penny or me.  If this is not an open list and if membership will be
limited, then I think it most fair to give the opportunity to join FAQ
to those who have *not* turned us down several times already.  This,
then, is something I would consider in evaluating Michelle, but not new
MEGs like Grey Wolf or Kirstini.
 
Third, we have had two instances where we jumpstarted this list by
bringing in a group of solid candidates who were not already involved in
list administration, and it worked beautifully, especially given that
morale tanked on FAQ post-Modgate.  Newcomers to list administration
often view joining FAQ as an honor (and it was, because they were picked
for a reason).  They often bring in new, creative perspectives and
*lots* of energy.  If FAQ is now a "I work at my own pace and I do not
wish to be nagged " type of group, then it might be wise to select folks
with lots of enthusiasm to begin with.
 
Fourth, it does trouble me *a lot* if some people get the inside track
on FAQ membership just because they know someone on FAQ.  I'd like to
see us stay away from favoritism and nepotism as much as we can.  There
were several people I barely knew in the last two classes of FAQ members
who joined us.  It has been my pleasure to get to know them, and I think
we all miss a valuable opportunity to reach out to and bond with the
community at large when we choose MEGs over non-MEGs. 
 
Fifth, I would favor non-MEGs over MEGs because each of us only has so
much on-line time.  Perhaps it is my imagination, but I do worry that
those who are splitting their time between this list and MEG will become
(or in some cases have already become) less invested in this list.  Some
MEG/FAQ members who used to post a lot have gone completely silent.
This may include FAQ/MEGs who are simply burned out or perhaps new MEGs
who seem to be putting less time into FAQ than they once did.  I believe
that Abigail addressed this issue briefly a few weeks ago and
[paraphrase] indicated that she joined MEG because FAQ had become rather
dead, but said she felt she could handle MEG involvement without
compromising her FAQ involvement.  This may be true in her case.  IMHO,
however, MEG time commitments tip the scales in favor of those who won't
have to split their HPfGU time between MEG and FAQ.
 
Sixth, we still have significant (but unaddressed) autonomy issues with
MEG.  If we were ever to have to decide issues related to autonomy, then
the number of MEGs here may become significant.  It did not make any
difference whatever in the past, but, well . . . it does seem that there
may be a difference of opinion among the FAQ list members on the
autonomy question.  I don't think I've heard a MEG/FAQ member express
concerns about preserving FAQ's autonomy in the same way some of the
non-MEGs FAQers have, which suggests that MEG membership does give one a
different perspective on FAQ autonomy issues.
 
Finally, I think it is a good idea generally to remember that we do have
people here who are not on MEG now and people who have never been on
MEG.  I can tell you from personal experience that our community looks
very different once one is not viewing it through the MEG lens.  In
evaluating the persuasiveness of someone's opinion, I do consider what I
know of them as a person, including whether they are viewing things
through the lens of MEG.  So I mention MEG matters and history in our
discussion when *I* consider them relevant.  Personally, I don't mind if
anyone believes what I say is irrelevant, and I certainly welcome
dissenting opinions.  I think it is more productive simply to advocate
the contrary position than label the opposing argument as irrelevant.  
 
There.  That is my opinion.  I imagine others disagree, which is fine by
me, and they should jump right in and say so.  But that is how I would
answer Phyllis' question off the top of my head.
 
Cindy
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From editor at texas.net  Sun Nov  2 16:46:45 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 10:46:45 -0600
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Are Prospective Members still interested?
References: <bnvavf+mmti@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004601c3a160$e85ac120$8a58aacf@texas.net>

Phyllis:

> I second this idea.  In fact, if we haven't yet done so, I think we
> owe everyone who has expressed an interest in joining a brief "Thanks
> for your interest, we're deciding whether to expand the group right
> now" response so that they don't feel as if we've been ignoring
> them.  I'd be happy to send such a response if others agree.

I'm sorry, I don't remember if anyone ever answered you. I think this is a
great idea. I tried to post earlier, that some of this discussion may be
moot unless we contact the people we're considering, and ask if they're even
still interested. Go for it.

~Amanda






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sun Nov  2 22:09:18 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 17:09:18 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] ADMIN/MEMB: Are Prospective Members still interested?
In-Reply-To: <004601c3a160$e85ac120$8a58aacf@texas.net>
Message-ID: <000001c3a18d$f64fee40$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hey!
 
Phyllis:

> In fact, if we haven't yet done so, I think we
> owe everyone who has expressed an interest in joining a brief "Thanks
> for your interest, we're deciding whether to expand the group right
> now" response so that they don't feel as if we've been ignoring
> them.  
 
Yes, this does sound appropriate.
 
 
Amanda:
 
>that some of this discussion may be
>moot unless we contact the people we're considering, and ask if they're
even
>still interested. 


Just to be clear . . . 
 
I assume we are thinking of writing to the people who have contacted the
FAQ list or a FAQ list member.  We are not going to reach out to folks
like Grey Wolf who have been nominated internally, right?
 
If the plan is to contact those who have been proposed but who don't
know they have been proposed to gauge their interest, I think we should
not do that, for obvious reasons.  If I misunderstood, please forgive
me.  
 
I assume drafts will be posted here for comment?
 
Finally, I'll remind whoever is composing these letters that Michelle
has been brought up to speed about what we are doing.  For your
convenience, I attach my letter to her from August, which I did make
sure went to her proper address.
 
Cindy
 
************************
[sent August 22, 2003]
 
Hi, Michelle,
 
By now, you know that I unsubscribed you from the FAQ list shortly
after Amanda invited you. The reason for that is that the group had
not decided what we wished to do about inviting new members, and I
wished to weigh in on that question before our new members arrived.
There also may have been some miscommunication about whether the FAQ
list has an open membership and, if so, how new members should be
chosen. There is much to sort out, as you might imagine.
 
Let me set your mind at ease about one thing: this was not intended
to be a personal rebuke. Not at all. And, you will be relieved to
hear, this incident does not have its roots in Modgate. It was a
simple glitch due to growing pains. As soon as we have some idea
how we should proceed, one of us will be right back to you.
 
Again, I'm sorry if there are any hurt feelings, and I regret that
you were caught in the middle on this one.
 
Oh, and you should know that I am sending this message in my
personal capacity, not on behalf of the group.
 
Take care,
 
Cindy
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  3 00:38:55 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:38:55 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Are Prospective Members still interested?
In-Reply-To: <000001c3a18d$f64fee40$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bo482v+pljf@eGroups.com>

Amanda wrote:
I nominate Abigail or one of the other more active MEGs to contact 
Kelley, Michelle, Grey Wolf, and whoever else on the potential list 
was a MEG. I call for a volunteer to contact the others.

I suggest a three-day response deadline from them, at which point if 
we haven't heard back, we assume no interest. /END QUOTE

Tom:
I do not think that candidates for FAQ should be treated differently 
if they're already on MEG. I intend to post on this (the MEG issue) 
at a later point in time (maybe sooner than later, actually), but I 
might as well chime in here.

In my opinion, every candidate should be treated the same, as in, 
contacted by the same individual, and sent the same letter. No one 
should be given an "in-crowd" treatment because they're already on 
MEG. 

And in my opinion, it should be a non-MEG member who sends those 
letters. Whether or not this group remains under the thumb of MEG or 
not, we should at least be clear in presenting a facade of slight 
independence, i.e. membership in one is not the same as membership 
in the other; MEG's and non-MEG's should be treated the same around 
here.

-Tom




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  3 00:46:38 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 00:46:38 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/ MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <000101c3a084$b7a866e0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bo48he+er8v@eGroups.com>

A few separate (and rather disparate) responses in this post...

Phyllis wrote:
Erm, I didn't exactly second these individuals - I said that I didn't
know them but thought that if someone was willing to help us out, I
was in favor of asking them to join.

Tom:
Oh, I just caught your approval and translated that to a `second.' 
Sorry for the confusion - I wasn't trying to mangle your words, just 
condence the sentiments.


Cindy wrote:
Tom can speak for himself (I'd bet Tom simply confused Kelley's 
status as an "ex-Mod" as stated in ["Insert New Title Here]" with 
her status on MEG)

Tom:
Something like that... all of those titles and timelines do get 
confusing, particularly when one is not involved directly. ;-) 

I was working from the basis that Kelley provided in her request to 
us, in which she stated that she had written to MEG to apply for 
membership, in addition to this list. In other words, at the time of 
her request to us she was not a member of MEG; at least, that's the 
impression that her letter gave to me.

Since that was never followed up (not that it necessarily *should* 
have been) I just assumed that she was still not a member of MEG.

- Tom





From editor at texas.net  Mon Nov  3 01:26:46 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 19:26:46 -0600
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Autonomy baffles me
References: <bo482v+pljf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001101c3a1a9$8d070ba0$9259aacf@texas.net>

Tom:

Whether or not this group remains under the thumb of MEG or
> not, we should at least be clear in presenting a facade of slight
> independence, i.e. membership in one is not the same as membership
> in the other; MEG's and non-MEG's should be treated the same around
> here.

Okay, for the record, I agree with what he said about prospective members =
prospective members and should be treated the same.

That said. I find the "under the thumb" reference mildly offensive, and I
find the references to autonomy baffling. This is the FAQ list for HP4GU. If
we are autonomous of HP4GU, what will we have to do? What will we have to
archive? This list is, by definition, purpose, and raison d'etre, a support
list of HP4GU. As such, it, like Chatter and Movie, is overseen by the
administration of the HP4GU "family" of groups. We are administered by MEG.

This list *can't* be autonomous. It's like saying the history department or
the university library could be autonomous of the university. They may have
Deans or head librarians, but organizationally, they both are overseen by
the university administration.

~Amanda






From editor at texas.net  Mon Nov  3 01:28:14 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 19:28:14 -0600
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/ MEMB: Prospective Members
References: <bo48he+er8v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001601c3a1a9$c1a3fa80$9259aacf@texas.net>

Tom:

> I was working from the basis that Kelley provided in her request to
> us, in which she stated that she had written to MEG to apply for
> membership, in addition to this list. In other words, at the time of
> her request to us she was not a member of MEG; at least, that's the
> impression that her letter gave to me.

No, what I think Kelley meant was that she had requested membership on FAQ
of MEG, at the same time she had requested it of FAQ.

~Amanda






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov  3 03:43:20 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 03:43:20 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Autonomy baffles me
In-Reply-To: <001101c3a1a9$8d070ba0$9259aacf@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bo4iso+k48v@eGroups.com>

Amanda wrote:

> That said. I find the "under the thumb" reference mildly offensive, 
>and I find the references to autonomy baffling. 


That's OK.  It's not an easy concept to grapple with.  Besides, we
have tip-toed around it, so it is not surprising that some of us would
be confused.  Me, I don't tip-toe.  ;-)


Amanda:

>This is the FAQ list for HP4GU. If we are autonomous of HP4GU, what
>will we have to do? 


When I speak of autonomy, I speak of this group running its own
affairs and being autonomous of *MEG,* not HPfGU.  

This means we choose our own members.  We decide if we are an open or
closed membership.  We decide our form of governance.  We decide what
FAQs to write and when to upload them.  We decide whether to make the
Enchilada public.  We decide how to do our work.  We decide if we wish
the FPs to be housed on the Lexicon or on FA.  We decide whether to
scrub our archives.  We decide whether to discipline, moderate or
expel a member.  We decide what prefixes to use on this list.  In
membership decisions, we decide whether to favor MEGs or non-MEGs or
treat them exactly the same.  That sort of thing.  

In short, autonomy means FAQ makes its own decisions about FAQ
matters.  MEG can ask anything of us, and we can ask anything of MEG,
of course.  MEG should ask our opinion about things if this would be
helpful, and vice versa.  Hopefully, we will consult and keep each
other informed and generally behave like mature adults.  But the final
authority for FAQ decisionmaking rests with FAQ, IMHO.  

This means that there will be times when FAQ and MEG have different
internal policies.  Scrubbing is the most obvious example, and the
most recent example where a MEG/FAQ member overstepped, IMHO.  As
things stand, FAQ scrubs its archives, and MEG does not (except MEGs
reserved for themselves the right to scrub their own posts, and I was
told MEG has belatedly decided to scrub my old MEG posts concerning
incoming members).  I see nothing wrong with this difference in
approach, and I have heard no persuasive argument as to why FAQ and
MEG must move in lockstep on these matters of internal affairs.  Yet
FAQ was told to table its scrubbing discussion while MEG decided how
things will be.  To me, that is not right.

Naturally, MEG and FAQ may work closely together on certain things
where our interests overlap.  HA is an example.  If MEG believed a
certain theory ought to be added to HA because members are confused by
a theory, MEG should *ask* the FAQ list, not demand or direct that
this be done.  We will then decide what to do.

Furthermore, MEGs should have no more power on this list than
non-MEGs.  And MEGs should never, *ever* pull rank on FAQ members. 
'Cause MEGs have no rank to pull, IMHO.

Amanda:


>This list is, by definition, purpose, and raison d'etre, a support  
>list of HP4GU. 

I do not see this list as a "support" list.  I did not come here to
serve on a MEG support list.  If MEG wishes to have any FAQ member
working in support of MEG, I think MEG should invite that FAQ member
to join MEG.

My view is that MEG runs the various HPfGU public lists (OTC, Movie,
Main, Announcements) and MEG decides policy for those lists.  FAQ
reviews posts to the main list and writes essays (with links) about
them.  MEG and FAQ exist for *totally* different purposes.  I see no
compelling reason for MEG to decide what happens on this list, just as
non-MEGs here get no say whatever as to what happens on MEG.  Indeed,
several MEGs have claimed that MEG isn't even discussing anything that
impacts us.  If this is true, then this too suggests that MEG is not
entangled in FAQ affairs, nor should it be.

Therefore, I do not see this list as subordinate to MEG.  Not at all.
 At times, I get the impression that some of our MEG members feel
differently, and it bugs me, frankly.

Now, there have been many times in the past when the line between MEG
and FAQ has been blurred.  The decision to change the name from "FAQs"
to "FPs" is an example.  That decision was made on MEG following a
naming contest on the main list won by *me* before I joined list
administration.  

<takes a belated bow>  

Why did it happen that way?  Who knows?  At the time, this list was
quite dead, and not much of anything was discussed here.  Also, back
then everyone on FAQ was on MEG except those FAQ members who simply
did not want to be on MEG, so it made sense to decide it on MEG, perhaps.

In October 2003, the Mods decided to kickstart this list, as you all
know.  And for the first time, the FAQ list reached out into the
community and brought in a group of new members who were not MEGs and
who were not invited to join MEG (although most of these new FAQers
were later admitted to MEG).  

That, IMHO, is when the autonomy issue was born.  If the door between
MEG and FAQ is wide open, then autonomy isn't all that important. 
Once you have a group on FAQ who is not welcome on MEG, then you
cannot possibly try to decide FAQ internal affairs on MEG, as you have
some folks who have been disenfranchised.  Not unless you want a
revolution on your hands!  If we learned anything from Modgate, I
would hope we learned that having one group of people (Mods) off on a
separate list deciding the fate of another group of people
(Elves/Geists) just leads to trouble. 


Amanda:

> This list *can't* be autonomous. It's like saying the history
>department or the university library could be autonomous of the
>university. 


*Of course* we can be autonomous as I have defined it.  Amanda's
argument seems premised on the assumption that FAQ exists to serve
MEG, which is a faulty assumption, I think.  

So MEG has two options, IMHO.  Either recognize that FAQ runs its own
affairs, or invite all FAQers to MEG and combine the membership of the
two lists.  Since I feel confident in predicting that MEG would never,
*ever* do the latter, I suggest our MEG members (and MEG as a whole)
simply recognize where its authority over the FAQ list ends and begin
to take it seriously.  

Amanda:


>No, what I think Kelley meant was that she had requested membership
>on FAQ of MEG, at the same time she had requested it of FAQ.

Actually, I think this statement of what occurred on MEG speaks
volumes about the need to preserve clear boundaries between this list
and MEG.  We have a very experienced list administrator (Kelley) who
for some reason petitions *MEG* to be admitted to the FAQ list.  How
weird is that?  One would no more approach MEG to seek membership in
FAQ than the other way around.  It certainly suggests that some MEGs
definitely view this list as subordinate, and I see that as a real
problem.
 
Going forward, I would like to think that all of our MEG/FAQ members
would be keenly aware of preserving appropriate boundaries.  For
instance, I am guessing that MEG discussed the unfortunate events in
this group in August.  Why, though?  I would think that ructions on
MEG are for MEG to deal with, and ructions here are for FAQ to deal
with.  Failure to observe the boundaries can lead to all manner of
thorny problems, such as a MEG feeling they might have the automatic
right to come on FAQ to observe or something along those lines.  

Sadly, I do not get the impression that our MEG members have
considered it at all important to remind MEG of the limits of its
authority vis a vis this group, most likely because they have yet to
grasp the significance of the issue.  I also don't know for sure
whether having such an overlap in the MEG/FAQ memberships is such a
good idea if MEGs will sometimes feel a sense of entitlement to
control issues best left in the hands of FAQ.  It is definitely
something to keep an eye on in the future. 

Does that help?

Cindy -- who doesn't find the phrase "under the thumb of MEG" to be
offensive, but who does find *being* under the thumb of MEG to be
offensive





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov  3 04:19:42 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 04:19:42 -0000
Subject: Requesting Contributions, Revisited
Message-ID: <bo4l0u+7dsv@eGroups.com>

Hi,

In Message 2215, I made some suggestions for how we might get list
members to nominate Fantastic Posts for us.  David replied (Thanks,
David!) but there were no other comments.

Since Abigail declared our first effort to be a failure, and since
there have been no nominations, I'd like to make some changes to what
we've tried so far along the lines of what I suggested.  Any objections?

Cindy




From editor at texas.net  Mon Nov  3 05:00:47 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 23:00:47 -0600
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB:  Autonomy baffles me
References: <bo4iso+k48v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001201c3a1c7$72e0ba00$aa58aacf@texas.net>

Cindy:

>Yet
> FAQ was told to table its scrubbing discussion while MEG decided how
> things will be.  To me, that is not right.

This is so irritating. My intention was to do this list a courtesy,
informing everyone that MEG was working on a policy for that same issue at
that time, and trying to save us having to reinvent the wheel.

I don't have the authority to table a discussion unilaterally. Why do you
think I do? Nobody does. I was just saying, this discussion is happening on
MEG, and it may affect FAQ, so maybe we should wait until MEG makes its
decision. This list could have ignored me and charged on. Honestly.

> Furthermore, MEGs should have no more power on this list than
> non-MEGs.  And MEGs should never, *ever* pull rank on FAQ members.
> 'Cause MEGs have no rank to pull, IMHO.

See above.

> Therefore, I do not see this list as subordinate to MEG.  Not at all.
> At times, I get the impression that some of our MEG members feel
> differently, and it bugs me, frankly.

We're probably going to have to get this issue resolved.

> Once you have a group on FAQ who is not welcome on MEG, then you
> cannot possibly try to decide FAQ internal affairs on MEG, as you have
> some folks who have been disenfranchised.

FAQ members are here to work on FAQs. MEGs are on MEG to administer HP4GU
lists. It's not that FAQ members are "not welcome," it's that the sets don't
overlap.

And I disagree with your premise that I said FAQ supports MEG. I said FAQ
supports HP4GU. MEG makes the admin decisions for HP4GU, and as such,
oversees all the support groups for HP4GU.

>  Not unless you want a
> revolution on your hands!  If we learned anything from Modgate, I
> would hope we learned that having one group of people (Mods) off on a
> separate list deciding the fate of another group of people
> (Elves/Geists) just leads to trouble.

For God's sake. We're not deciding anyone's "fate." How melodramatic.

I would think there are some delicate issues about the use of people's posts
on a list other than the one they posted to. I believe the intellectual
property people have looked at the situation and it's okay for HP4GU to
reference posts in FAQs. However, I believe strongly that HP4GU must retain
control of FAQ, in order to be able to control the use and presentation of
the referenced posts. The MEG list is the administrative list for HP4GU, and
is the means whereby HP4GU would retain control of FAQ. This means, to me,
that MEG oversees FAQ.

Heidi? Thoughts?

Really, I don't see why this is such an issue. What repressions are being
perpetrated, what horrible acts are taking place, that these stirring calls
for freedom are being made?

Amanda earlier:
> >No, what I think Kelley meant was that she had requested membership
> >on FAQ of MEG, at the same time she had requested it of FAQ.

Cindy:
> Actually, I think this statement of what occurred on MEG speaks
> volumes about the need to preserve clear boundaries between this list
> and MEG.  We have a very experienced list administrator (Kelley) who
> for some reason petitions *MEG* to be admitted to the FAQ list.

She asked in both places. She was covering all bases, for the simple reason
that it is not clear.

Cindy:

>Failure to observe the boundaries can lead to all manner of
> thorny problems, such as a MEG feeling they might have the automatic
> right to come on FAQ to observe or something along those lines.

Yeah, or a FAQ member unilaterally deciding to unsub someone on a suspicion.
That'd be really unfortunate.

~Amanda





From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  3 08:39:53 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 08:39:53 -0000
Subject: New File - Harry FP Resource
Message-ID: <bo548p+rmc1@eGroups.com>

Hi,

I've just uploaded a reduced version of the Whole Enchilada (plus 
the addendum file) to the Files section.  This version contains only 
those lines from the WE which contained the topic term 'Harry'.  
There are about 1400 (a definite improvement on the 10,000+ in the 
Enchilada).  I've removed the 'Harry' topic term for each post and 
added a new column titled 'Importance'.  This means how important a 
topic term the original catalguer considered 'Harry' to be.  In 
other words, if 'Harry' appeared as the first topic term, the 
Importance field will read Primary, and likewise, for the second and 
third topics, Secondary and Tertiary, respectively.

The file is sorted according to the first and second topic terms, 
but it could be resorted on your computer according to message 
number.  I created it in Excel on Windows XP, so I don't think 
Windows users should have any problems reading it.  Mac users can 
use Appleworks to open it - just tell the program you're opening an 
Excel file and it should be fine.  If there's a problem I can try to 
create an Appleworks file.

Abigail




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  3 12:02:00 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:02:00 -0000
Subject: Harry FP Outline v. 3.0
Message-ID: <bo5g3o+d5sr@eGroups.com>

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, right this way - you will not believe 
your eyes!  Delivered directly to your website from a word processor in 
the dusty and unseasonably warm Levant, it's the third incarnation of the 
Harry FP outline!

<crickets chirp, tumbleweeds blow>

But seriously folks, I posted the original version not long after joining in 
June.  You can find it in message #1769.  It was basically a list of questions.  
After OOP came out, I posted a revamped version as a list of bullet points 
(posts #2013 & #2230) along with question as to how the new information 
in OOP would affect the Harry FP.  This third version is my own answer to 
that question, mostly in light of the topics the group has been concentrating 
on, and the questions that seem to be on everyone's mind.

So, without further ado, I give you:

--------------------

Harry FP Outline v. 3.0

1. Harry's character, development and relationships 
	1.1 Harry's early life
		1.1.1 Harry as an abused child - how realistic is his resilience?  
		1.1.2 Does Harry suffer from PTSD or any other mental defect as a 
			  result of his treatment by the Dursleys?
		1.1.3 The entire series as Harry's protective hallucination/dream
		1.1.4 Did Harry spend the missing 24 hours with Molly or the 
			  Longbottoms, and does he have any memory of this?
	1.2 Harry's personality	
		1.2.1 Is Harry a take-charge hero or an arrogant kid?
		1.2.2 How justified is Harry's incessant rule-breaking?
		1.2.3 Harry's development in OOP - is his behavior normal for his 
			  age?
		1.2.4 In the wake of the events of GoF, is Harry suffering from 
			  PTSD or any other mental defect?  What about after OOP?
		1.2.5 Does Harry possess self-control?  When and why does he  
			 choose to exercise it?
	1.3 Harry's inability/unwillingness to ask for help 
		1.3.1 Is it the result of his personality or his upbringing?
		1.3.2 Why is Harry unwilling to tell anyone about Umbridge's 
			  punishment?
		1.3.3 Does Harry really have a hero complex?  
	1.4 Harry's relationships with adults 
		1.4.1 Harry's father figures
		1.4.2 Harry's mother figures
		1.4.3 Harry and Sirius
		1.4.4 Harry and Dumbledore
		1.4.5 Harry and Snape
		1.4.6 Harry and other adult figures (Hagrid, Lupin, Bagman, Fudge)
		1.4.7 Generational parallels between Harry and adult characters  
			 living and dead
	1.5 Harry's relationships with his contemporaries
		1.5.1 Harry and Ron	
			1.5.1.1 The GoF Rift
		1.5.2 Harry and Hermione
		1.5.3 Harry and Draco
		1.5.4 Harry and Neville
		1.5.5 Harry and other children (Dudley, Ginny, Cedric)
		1.5.6 Harry and romance
			1.5.6.1 When, and to what extent, does Harry notice the  
					opposite sex in PoA, GoF and OOP?
			1.5.6.2 Harry's relationship with Cho in OOP
	1.6 Harry's reactions to fame
		1.6.1 How does Harry's history with Voldemort affect Harry's self-
			  image?
		1.6.2 How does Harry's fame in the Wizarding world affect his self-
			  image?
		1.6.3 How do Harry's triumphs over Voldemort affect his self-image?
		1.6.4 How does Harry's ability at Quidditch affect his self-image?
		1.6.5 How does the revelation of the prophecy affect Harry's self-
			  image?
	1.7 Harry failing 
		1.7.1 Harry's mundane failures - at school, at romance, with his 
			  friends
		1.7.2 Harry's blatant failure in OOP
		1.7.3 How does Harry respond to failure?
		1.7.4 Does Harry learn from failure?

2. Harry's purpose, abilities and destiny 
	2.1 Why did Harry survive? 
		2.1.1 Straight up love protection	
		2.1.2	Love as a Spell Component	
		2.1.4 Ancient Magic
	2.2 Is Harry special and how
		2.2.1 Stoned!Harry
		2.2.2 The Prophecy 
			2.2.2.1 Is Harry the person mentioned in the prophecy?
			2.2.2.2 Does Harry still have free will?
			2.2.2.3 Will Harry choose to follow the prophecy?
	2.3 Heir of Gryffindor 
	2.3 Harry's abilities 
		2.3.1 Is Harry simply a gifted wizard or a preternaturally talented 
			  one? 
		2.3.2 Is Harry a Quidditch prodigy or simply a talented high-school 
			  jock? 
		2.3.3 How much of Voldemort is in Harry?  How does the connection 
			  between them affect Harry's magical abilities?
		2.3.4 Will Harry become an animagus?
		2.3.5 Will Harry become a metamorphmagus?
		2.3.6 Is Harry a legilimens/occlumens or will he learn those skills?
		2.3.7 Will Harry become an Auror?
		2.3.8 Harry as a leader
			2.3.8.1 Does Harry have what it takes to lead, or is he too  
					busy trying to save the world himself?
			2.3.8.2 Harry and the DA 
				2.3.8.2.1 How does leading the DA develop Harry's skills  
						  as a leader?
				2.3.8.2.2 Will Harry become a teacher?
	2.4 Was the Philosopher's Stone ordeal rigged? 
	2.5 Harry's future
		2.5.1 Will Harry die?	
		2.5.2 Will defeating Voldemort cost Harry his magical powers?
		2.5.3 Will Harry choose/be forced to leave the wizarding world?

--------------------

Thoughts?  Suggestions?  Comments?  Cries for my head on a platter?

Abigail
Hoping against hope that her formatting will survive webview




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  3 12:11:33 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:11:33 -0000
Subject: Harry FP Outline v. 3.0
In-Reply-To: <bo5g3o+d5sr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo5gll+cqbs@eGroups.com>

Augh!  My indentations!  My beautiful indentations! 

So, you have to imagine that with every level of the outline, the text gets 
indented one column.  It looks really pretty.  I can upload a file of it if it's 
truly unreadable.

A.




From editor at texas.net  Mon Nov  3 15:26:52 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 15:26:52 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Damn. Scrubbing again.
In-Reply-To: <bo4iso+k48v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo5s3s+5grb@eGroups.com>

Cindy:

> This means that there will be times when FAQ and MEG have different
> internal policies.  Scrubbing is the most obvious example, and the
> most recent example where a MEG/FAQ member overstepped, IMHO.  As
> things stand, FAQ scrubs its archives, and MEG does not 

Okay, I'd understood that as things stood on FAQ, this had not been 
decided yet. I definitely had never, before the recent discussions, 
been aware that this took place, and I object to it, and I honestly 
apologize if a silence imposed by my not noticing a poll go by, let 
it seem that I agreed.

I am not objecting to scrubbing because MEG doesn't. I object to 
scrubbing because I object to scrubbing. I dislike altering history, 
I think the "holes" would be far more worrisome to new members (left 
free to imagine the worst) than reading comments, and I think the 
awareness that the words may be read exerts a completely healthy 
pressure to remain civil in discussions.

I, speaking only as a FAQ member and not caring what other lists do, 
won't agree to a standard scrubbing policy that extends past one 
poster's right to delete their own words.

~Amanda






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov  3 16:28:12 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:28:12 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Autonomy baffles me
In-Reply-To: <001201c3a1c7$72e0ba00$aa58aacf@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bo5vmt+vqn0@eGroups.com>

Amanda wrote (about the FAQ list's scrubbing discussion):

>My intention was to do this list a courtesy, informing everyone that
>MEG was working on a policy for that same issue at that time, and
>trying to save us having to reinvent the wheel.

You know, I have a feeling that this is just one of those things that
looks different depending on one's perspective and access to
information.  Amanda wrote (Message 2307, Oct. 10):

>FYI: A discussion on the legality of list scrubbing has opened on
>MEG, which may render this particular "vote" moot. I suggest we hold
>off on discussing this for the here and now.

I questioned this (Message 2309):

>I'm confused. MEG is deciding what the FAQ list will do about
>scrubbing the *FAQ* list archives? Or did you mean MEG is deciding
>about its own archives? <puzzled look>

>Shouldn't the FAQ list decide its own internal policies on something
>like that?

Amanda answered:

>It's not list-specific. It has to do with interpreting Yahoo Terms,
>and as such is relevant to FAQ or any other Yahoo list. And it's on
>MEG because MEG is the admin list for the HP4GU "family." What comes
>of the discussion is likely to be relevant to the options we
>consider--so I just thought we might want to wait.


I have a couple of problems with this very polite, civil exchange.  

First, the MEG scrubbing/Yahoo terms/"legal technicalities" discussion
referenced apparently took place around Oct. 10 -- well after MEG had
brought on new elves (the ADMIN was in September).  This suggests to
me that MEG had already reached a decision internally about scrubbing
its own archives.  No problem there.

Nevertheless, MEG was apparently having another discussion about
scrubbing.  I couldn't imagine why MEG would be doing that (everyone
knows you scrub *before* new people arrive, not after) unless MEG was
aware that FAQ was deciding its own internal policy on the issue, and
MEG was getting ready to tell FAQ How Things Will Be.  I have no way
to be sure, of course.  But it was a red flag that MEG believed it had
the right to decide the FAQ list scrubbing policy and was actually in
the process of doing so.  And as it turned out, MEG admits it erred
and handled the scrubbing issue on MEG badly, so had MEG decided FAQ's
policy, that error would have impacted FAQ also.

Second, Amanda's messages did not say what issues are being considered
on MEG, and FAQ really shouldn't be kept in the dark like that if MEG
thinks it is deciding the FAQ list scrubbing policy.  In other words,
it would have been much better for Amanda to have said something like,
"We are discussing that on MEG, we think the issues are A, B, and C,
and we have learned X, Y and Z from our legal eagles so we're going to
do 1, 2 and 3.  We might want to take that into consideration as FAQ
decides."  There is a difference between providing helpful information
that FAQ might wish to have (like the limit on the number of
moderators and whatever solution MEG devised) rather than suggesting
that FAQ wait in the dark while MEG decides what will happen.

Now, what is the reason that Amanda or one of the other FAQ/MEG
members did not just forward (or even paraphrase) the October MEG
discussion of scrubbing for the benefit of the FAQ list?  I have no
idea.  I suspect there were concerns about MEG confidentiality.  If
that is the way it will be, I submit that it is highly inappropriate
for MEG to decide our internal policies -- not only is FAQ subordinate
to MEG now, but MEG won't even tell FAQ what it is doing and why? 
That seems wrong to me.



>I was just saying, this discussion is happening on
> MEG, and it may affect FAQ, so maybe we should wait until MEG makes
>its  decision. 

That's the issue, of course.  Does the MEG policy on scrubbing affect
or decide what will happen on FAQ?  I would say only to the extent MEG
wishes to inform FAQ what it has learned in an effort to be helpful.
FAQ gets to decide, though.

I'm really surprised to hear that any of our MEG members think MEG can
decide the internal policies of FAQ.  This is from Pip's FAQ Message 
2020 in August:

>I think that what you need to do is work out how you yourselves want
>FAQ to be run. Do you want an elected leadership, rather than one
>appointed by MEG? Do you want to be able to ask the MEGs on this
>list policy questions about things that may affect FAQ? And to be
>able to require us to answer? 

Did something change?  Pip made clear in her message that she was not
speaking on behalf of MEG, but let me ask.  Does MEG agree with what
Pip is saying, or is MEG agreeing with what Amanda is saying?

Some clarity here would be much appreciated.


Amanda:

> And I disagree with your premise that I said FAQ supports MEG. I
>said FAQ supports HP4GU. MEG makes the admin decisions for HP4GU, and
>as such, oversees all the support groups for HP4GU.


This statement("FAQ supports HP4FU") has no meaning to me.  What does
it mean for FAQ to "support" HPfGU?  HPfGU is a *thing* -- a group of
lists.  MEG administers HPfGU and attends to the needs of list members
-- one could properly say MEG "supports" the various public lists. 
FAQ writes essays about one of the HPfGU lists.  So in what way does
FAQ "support" HPfGU or the lists themselves? 

Furthermore, what other "support groups" are you referring to? 
There's the convention list, but MEG never once asserted control over
the internal policies of that list while I was on MEG.  What am I
missing?  

Amanda:

> I would think there are some delicate issues about the use of
>people's posts on a list other than the one they posted to. 

These issues have been fully resolved.  Heidi wrote something about it
here on this list a few months back.  I do not believe anyone is
talking about intellectual property issues when they discuss
"autonomy," but if someone is concerned about IP issues, they should
probably speak up.


>This means, to me, that MEG oversees FAQ.


I will submit to you that, until now, no one took the position that
MEG "oversaw" FAQ, that is, handled internal decisionmaking for FAQ. 
The two most recent groups of FAQ members were brought on without
consulting MEG.  The decision to move to the FA servers was made
without consulting MEG.  And so forth.

But let me approach it this way.  What FAQ decisions do you want MEG
to make on behalf of the FAQ list?  

If there are none, then I think the best thing would be for us to
acknowledge that MEG runs MEG and FAQ runs FAQ and have done with it.
 I think failing to do sooner is one of the reasons we had confusion
about how one obtains an invitation to join this list.  I raised this
autonomy issue with Amy and Joy this summer, and they didn't fully
grasp the issue but at least understood that FAQ runs FAQ.  Indeed,
one (of several) reason I didn't slap the "FAQ Leader" crown on my
head when Amy and Joy urged me to take over here is that I wasn't at
all sure that MEG could name a leader for the FAQ list in the first place.

> Really, I don't see why this is such an issue. What repressions are
>being perpetrated, what horrible acts are taking place, that these
>stirring calls for freedom are being made?


Let's view it this way.  Given that some FAQ members are not welcome
on MEG, given that MEG considers its operations to be confidential,
given that some MEGs are not members of FAQ and therefore don't know
what goes on here, why would MEG wish to have any control over our
internal decisionmaking in the first place?  What power are you hoping
to exert someday?  

But OK.  If MEG really, really wants decisionmaking authority over FAQ
affairs Just In Case, then MEG might have to rethink its current view
on confidentiality and give FAQ members read-only privileges on MEG if
that is where FAQ policies may be decided.

As I discuss this with you, Amanda, I cannot even tell if you are
speaking as an individual, or even whether all of MEG feels as you do.
 Can you see that having MEG deciding the policies of the FAQ list is
a recipe for hard feelings and miscommunication and that the better
approach might just be recognize that MEG's authority over FAQ ends at
MEG's front door?  This would require MEG to relinqish its claim of
global authority and power over FAQ, but that really might be the best
thing.


<Kelley> 

>She asked in both places. She was covering all bases, for the simple
>reason that it is not clear.

Oh, I know.  I understand that.  I'm not saying Kelley did anything
improper.  The incident does seem, though, to be evidence that there
is confusion about who runs the FAQ list, though.  

Cindy





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov  3 16:57:19 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 16:57:19 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Damn. Scrubbing again.
In-Reply-To: <bo5s3s+5grb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo61df+hadb@eGroups.com>

Hey,

Amanda (on scrubbing):

> Okay, I'd understood that as things stood on FAQ, this had not been 
> decided yet. 

Well, I thought that we did have a new-and-improved scrubbing policy
with a flashy new prefix, but perhaps we need to discuss this further.  

I proposed a policy in Messages 2320 and 2328.  

For ease of reference, here it is:

*************************

A proposal, then.

How about if this group decides to review its archives before new
members arrive and to delete anything that might embarrass a new
member, as we have done in the past? If MEG comes up with some
compelling reason to handle things differently, they can tell us and
we can reconsider our decision, of course. This proposal will avoid
delay in bringing in new members, it will avoid spending any more time
and effort on the issue, and it will side-step all of those sticky
autonomy issues as well! Ever So Awesome!

How about if no one objects to this proposal in the next few days,
we'll consider that to be our group consensus decision? Or, if we
prefer to go with majority rule on this one, I guess we could draft
and run a poll.

*********************

Amanda and Abigail replied and objected.  I then experienced sharp
pains in my abdomen:

**********************

<low moan>

It's *not* a big issue. That's what I've been trying to say!

The FAQ list already *has* a policy (we scrub if and when we bring in
new members, and this is done to protect new members from reading
embarrassing mentions of themselves). It works *fine.* We have never,
*ever* had a problem with it, so far as I know. We rarely even need to
*think* about it. No one has provided a single reason why the status
quo needs to be disturbed.

I would like to keep the status quo intact and *move on,* myself.

So if everyone thinks the status quo is just fine, then we are done
here. If someone has a good reason why we need to *change* our
scrubbing policy, perhaps they could state what that reason is so we
could consider it? Otherwise, I really think we are in very good shape
here.

**************************

There were no objections and no further discussion.  I thought we were
finished.

OK.  Well, it seems that we have to decide this scrubbing issue before
we bring in new people so perhaps we should do so as quickly as we can
so we don't further delay the arrival of our new members.


Amanda:

>I definitely had never, before the recent discussions, 
> been aware that this took place, and I object to it, and I honestly 
> apologize if a silence imposed by my not noticing a poll go by, let 
> it seem that I agreed.

No, no poll.  I had really hoped we could handle this with a consensus
proposal.

I suppose, then, that we need to consider two separate policies, one
for messages already in our archives and one for future messages --
the latter messages to be written with full knowledge of what our
scrubbing policy will be.  A comprehensive proposal, then  . . . 

First, we should confirm that we will delete archived posts bearing
the "MEMB" prefix that contain unflattering references.  That was the
whole point of the prefix.  

Second, we must consider past messages in the archives that were
written either: (1) by FAQers who had no idea that the archives would
be scrubbed to delete insulting or offensive references to arriving
members, or (2) by FAQers who *did* know that the archives would be
scrubbed and made candid assessments in reliance on the belief that
such remarks would be deleted before new FAQ members arrived.

I propose that these messages by scrubbed.  Group 1 adherents probably
didn't say anything offensive anyway, but we can't be certain about
which FAQers had an accurate understanding of our scrubbing policy. 
Group 2 surely understood, though, and it would be *wrong* to change
the rules retroactively as to Group 2, who relied on the scrubbing
policy in deciding what to say in the past.

For future posts (defined as posts written after we formally decide
this issue), I would propose that posts bearing the "MEMB" prefix be
scrubbed (meaning deleted if they contain objectionable references to
incoming members).  I would propose that anyone can delete their own
posts anytime for any reason.  I would propose that if someone quotes
someone else's statement that contains objectionable references, then
the original author can instruct that the post be deleted (don't quote
others if you wish to be absolutely sure your words will remain in the
archives indefinitely).

Finally, I propose that whoever scrubs the archives retain a copy
off-list of whatever is scrubbed *or* forward the scrubbed post to its
author for safekeeping before deleting it.  Anyone who wishes to make
sure they have a complete archive of everything ever posted here
should change their delivery option to "Individual E-mail" or "Daily
Digest."  This way, no history will be lost.

Any objections?

Amanda:

> I, speaking only as a FAQ member and not caring what other lists do, 
> won't agree to a standard scrubbing policy that extends past one 
> poster's right to delete their own words.

I assume that you'll abide by the group decision, though.  Am I right?

Cindy




From editor at texas.net  Mon Nov  3 17:02:18 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:02:18 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Talk to the right audience
In-Reply-To: <bo5vmt+vqn0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo61mq+nkqm@eGroups.com>

Cindy, you need to address your questions to MEG, not FAQ. MEG 
members on FAQ are here as FAQ members; a formal MEG liaison has not 
been identified yet. You have not formally asked MEG any of these 
things. We can discuss this all we want over here, but you haven't 
officially involved MEG as a party to the discussion, as yet.

~Amanda







From editor at texas.net  Mon Nov  3 17:05:54 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:05:54 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Autonomy baffles me
In-Reply-To: <bo5vmt+vqn0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo61ti+i46f@eGroups.com>

Cindy:

> As I discuss this with you, Amanda, I cannot even tell if you are
> speaking as an individual, or even whether all of MEG feels as you 
do.

Unless I say "I'm speaking as a representative of MEG," all opinions 
are my own. Over here, I speak as a member of FAQ; in the instance of 
the scrubbing thing, I had what I thought was a useful perspective 
that I shared. I wasn't speaking as anybody Officially Designated or 
anything.

~Amanda
Just Amanda
100% Amanda
Contents May Settle In Shipping
Your Mileage May Vary




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov  3 17:14:24 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:14:24 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Talk to the right audience
In-Reply-To: <bo61mq+nkqm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo62dg+hh90@eGroups.com>

Actually, I was kind of hoping that Amanda and other MEGs might
respond and opine in their personal capacities about what makes sense
here (assuming MEG hasn't already decided some of the questions I
raised).  I know that no individual MEG can speak for MEG absent . . .
well, I have no idea what a formal MEG pronouncement on this list
would look like, as I don't think there has ever been one.  

We are fortunate enough to have both of the MEG facilitators (Debbie
and Pippin) here as members.  I assume if there are MEG agenda items
raised by my remarks, then they are already on top of this and will
raise the appropriate issues on MEG.

FWIW, anyone who wishes to do so can forward my message to MEG, if
they'd like.  

Cindy 




From heidit at netbox.com  Mon Nov  3 17:37:44 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:37:44 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Damn. Scrubbing again.
In-Reply-To: <bo61df+hadb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo63p8+7pa3@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:

> I proposed a policy in Messages 2320 and 2328.  
> 

> Amanda and Abigail replied and objected.  

Actually, so did I. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-
FAQ/message/2300 was the post. 



Cindy also wrote: 
> The FAQ list already *has* a policy (we scrub if and when we bring 
in
> new members, and this is done to protect new members from reading
> embarrassing mentions of themselves). It works *fine.* We have 
never,
> *ever* had a problem with it, so far as I know. We rarely even 
need to
> *think* about it. No one has provided a single reason why the 
status
> quo needs to be disturbed.

And I guess my reply to this issue, in particular, is somewhat 
belated, but better late than never, no?

I'll expand on my position a bit more:

This list is here to HELP us write the FAQs. If someone posts here 
with an url from a post that they think is particularly helpful, and 
lists the writer of that post, and we later invite the writer onto 
the FAQ list and our policy is to scrub all mentions of that writer 
from the files, we've just lost a useful bit of information. 

Has that happened to date? I have no idea. 

Could it happen? It's certainly possible. And that, very simply, is 
why I think that scrubbing all mention of a potential FAQlister from 
the files is a mistake, and should not be done. Not going forward. 
Not going backwards. Not at all. 

HOWEVER, if someone wants to cull through the archives and give 
links to all the posts that mention someone, and if there is true 
consensus (ie no dissentors) we can delete the post, I would have no 
objection to that being the going-forward policy. 

Heidi

PS - Yes, I know someone is going to say that we only should delete 
things that are negative, but then, what if someone discussed a few 
posts, including a post that had a new idea but was written with a 
few grammar errors, and perhaps posted that "the theory in this 
needs to be in an FP - as long as we paraphrase, so we don't include 
that bizzare comma usage!" - well, that is somewhat negative, isn't 
it, but still a useful bit of information. 


> I would like to keep the status quo intact and *move on,* myself.
> 
> So if everyone thinks the status quo is just fine, then we are done
> here. If someone has a good reason why we need to *change* our
> scrubbing policy, perhaps they could state what that reason is so 
we
> could consider it? Otherwise, I really think we are in very good 
shape
> here.
> 
> **************************
> 
> There were no objections and no further discussion.  I thought we 
were
> finished.
> 
> OK.  Well, it seems that we have to decide this scrubbing issue 
before
> we bring in new people so perhaps we should do so as quickly as we 
can
> so we don't further delay the arrival of our new members.
> 
> 
> Amanda:
> 
> >I definitely had never, before the recent discussions, 
> > been aware that this took place, and I object to it, and I 
honestly 
> > apologize if a silence imposed by my not noticing a poll go by, 
let 
> > it seem that I agreed.
> 
> No, no poll.  I had really hoped we could handle this with a 
consensus
> proposal.
> 
> I suppose, then, that we need to consider two separate policies, 
one
> for messages already in our archives and one for future messages --
> the latter messages to be written with full knowledge of what our
> scrubbing policy will be.  A comprehensive proposal, then  . . . 
> 
> First, we should confirm that we will delete archived posts bearing
> the "MEMB" prefix that contain unflattering references.  That was 
the
> whole point of the prefix.  
> 
> Second, we must consider past messages in the archives that were
> written either: (1) by FAQers who had no idea that the archives 
would
> be scrubbed to delete insulting or offensive references to arriving
> members, or (2) by FAQers who *did* know that the archives would be
> scrubbed and made candid assessments in reliance on the belief that
> such remarks would be deleted before new FAQ members arrived.
> 
> I propose that these messages by scrubbed.  Group 1 adherents 
probably
> didn't say anything offensive anyway, but we can't be certain about
> which FAQers had an accurate understanding of our scrubbing 
policy. 
> Group 2 surely understood, though, and it would be *wrong* to 
change
> the rules retroactively as to Group 2, who relied on the scrubbing
> policy in deciding what to say in the past.
> 
> For future posts (defined as posts written after we formally decide
> this issue), I would propose that posts bearing the "MEMB" prefix 
be
> scrubbed (meaning deleted if they contain objectionable references 
to
> incoming members).  I would propose that anyone can delete their 
own
> posts anytime for any reason.  I would propose that if someone 
quotes
> someone else's statement that contains objectionable references, 
then
> the original author can instruct that the post be deleted (don't 
quote
> others if you wish to be absolutely sure your words will remain in 
the
> archives indefinitely).
> 
> Finally, I propose that whoever scrubs the archives retain a copy
> off-list of whatever is scrubbed *or* forward the scrubbed post to 
its
> author for safekeeping before deleting it.  Anyone who wishes to 
make
> sure they have a complete archive of everything ever posted here
> should change their delivery option to "Individual E-mail" 
or "Daily
> Digest."  This way, no history will be lost.
> 
> Any objections?
> 
> Amanda:
> 
> > I, speaking only as a FAQ member and not caring what other lists 
do, 
> > won't agree to a standard scrubbing policy that extends past one 
> > poster's right to delete their own words.
> 
> I assume that you'll abide by the group decision, though.  Am I 
right?
> 
> Cindy




From heidit at netbox.com  Mon Nov  3 17:49:37 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:49:37 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Damn. Scrubbing again.
In-Reply-To: <bo61df+hadb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo64fh+2cki@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote, a while ago:

> The FAQ list already *has* a policy (we scrub if and when we bring 
in
> new members, and this is done to protect new members from reading
> embarrassing mentions of themselves). It works *fine.* We have 
never,
> *ever* had a problem with it, so far as I know. We rarely even 
need to
> *think* about it. No one has provided a single reason why the 
status
> quo needs to be disturbed.
> 
> I would like to keep the status quo intact and *move on,* myself.
> 


> Second, we must consider past messages in the archives that were
> written either: (1) by FAQers who had no idea that the archives 
would
> be scrubbed to delete insulting or offensive references to arriving
> members, or (2) by FAQers who *did* know that the archives would be
> scrubbed and made candid assessments in reliance on the belief that
> such remarks would be deleted before new FAQ members arrived.
> 


Cindy, I honestly think that Group Two would be limited to, well, 
you, at least for any posts made before May 30. 

Here's why I think this: 

On May 30 you posted about inviting new members in, and scrubbing 
the archives: 

<<Also, I haven't scrubbed
the archives yet. I doubt there's anything at all worth scrubbing,
but I do mean to check on that.>>
Post 1748

Now, I admit that I wasn't paying attention to ANYTHING at that 
point, given that I was in the middle of a nonstress test at the 
obstetrician as they decided whether to induce me that day or wait 
until Sunday night (for those who don't know, we waited until Sunday 
night). But nobody did reply then, so your argument that posts made 
after that were made with the knowledge that posts here are scrubbed 
has some veracity behind it. 

But before that, the only mention of SCRUB, SCRUBBING or SCRUBBED on 
this FAQ list was in reference to potatoes 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-FAQ/message/1491). So I do not 
think that anyone on this list had any reasonable expectation of 
thinking that posts to this list would be scrubbed before midday on 
May 30, 2003. 

Accordingly, I don't think *we* the FAQ list had a policy before 
August. I think *you* had a policy and *you* enforced/engaged in it. 

Unless there's a post to the list that would've been in the archives 
had it not been deleted and which I am thus missing on my search 
through the archives? It's certainly possible.

Heidi




From dicentra at xmission.com  Mon Nov  3 17:52:43 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (Dicentra spectabilis)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 17:52:43 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Autonomy baffles me
In-Reply-To: <bo5vmt+vqn0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo64lb+bh9m@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote: 
 
> Nevertheless, MEG was apparently having another discussion about
> scrubbing.  I couldn't imagine why MEG would be doing that (everyone
> knows you scrub *before* new people arrive, not after) unless MEG was
> aware that FAQ was deciding its own internal policy on the issue, and
> MEG was getting ready to tell FAQ How Things Will Be.  

That particular discussion addressed the legal ramifications of
deleting posts from a list. We were analyzing the Yahoo ToU, with help
from Heidi, to determine what we were and were not able to do.  We
needed to know if list admins had the right to delete content at will
or whether former members of a list had the right to ask that their
content be deleted.  Had we discovered that the Yahoo ToU prohibited
scrubbing or mandated "remote" deletion, that discovery would have
affected FAQ.  

We found no language that directly addressed those issues, IIRC. 
That's why MEG said nothing to FAQ: it became a moot point.  But
Amanda's suggestion that the scrubbing decision be held off was made
*during* the investigation into the ToU, the discoveries from which
could have made the scrubbing discussion on FAQ moot. 

MEG wasn't trying to make a decision on what we wanted to do with FAQ,
we were trying to determine what Yahoo did and did not permit.  It
wasn't a policy discussion, it was research.

Should the MEG liason have kept FAQ informed about this?  Yup.  So
whoever the MEG liason is ought to be ashamed.

--Dicentra, speaking for herself and aware that there is no MEG liason
as of yet




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov  3 18:31:39 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:31:39 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB:  Damn. Scrubbing again.
In-Reply-To: <bo63p8+7pa3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000101c3a238$b8d30010$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
Heidi wrote:
 
>>>>>>>>>>
 
>If someone posts here 
>with an url from a post that they think is particularly helpful, and 
>lists the writer of that post, and we later invite the writer onto 
>the FAQ list and our policy is to scrub all mentions of that writer 
>from the files, we've just lost a useful bit of information. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
 
Actually, the proposal is to scrub *unflattering* mentions of arriving
list members.  You may recall my exchange here with Melody in which I
proposed her candidacy in a tone that sounded like an afterthought.  I
did not scrub that message because it was not unflattering, although it
was close to the line, nor did I scrub messages that showed Cindy
suggested these five people and Elkins suggested these two and Phyllis
suggested this one.  I think arriving members won't be embarrassed about
knowing who nominated them, generally.  (You'll also notice that my
draft invitation to new FAQers is right there in the archives, which
undoubtedly deflated any new members who thought they had received a
personal letter only to find out it was a form!  <g>"
 
Furthermore, some of our FAQ members had the pleasure of arriving to see
themselves praised.  Those message were not deleted, either.  Indeed,
when I arrived on MEG long ago as a wide-eyed elf, there were positive
messages about me there.  I'm kinda glad they weren't scrubbed because
they did make me feel warm and fuzzy and welcome.  
 
So perhaps we should focus on "unflattering," "insulting,"
"embarrassing" and "awkward" as the appropriate descriptors here.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Heidi:
 
>Has that happened to date? I have no idea. 


>>>>>>>>>>>
 
No, it hasn't.
 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
>Could it happen? It's certainly possible. And that, very simply, is 
>why I think that scrubbing all mention of a potential FAQlister from 
>the files is a mistake, and should not be done. 
 
I agree.  Let's not scrub "all" mentions of arriving FAQers.
 
Again, that is not the proposal on the table.  Search for "Melody" or
"Eric" and see what I mean.  
 
FWIW, the proposal allows for the deleting of messages that do not refer
to an arriving member by name.  For example, if there were a derogatory
reference here to "what's-his-name, you know, the guy from Spain who
advocates MD and wrote the OoP VFAQs," that message would be scrubbed if
it contained any inappropriate remark about "the guy from Spain."  

>HOWEVER, if someone wants to cull through the archives and give 
>links to all the posts that mention someone, and if there is true 
>consensus (ie no dissentors) we can delete the post, I would have no 
>objection to that being the going-forward policy. 
 
This seems needlessly labor-intensive, IMHO.  Surely we won't have
discussions about each post that might be deleted, with debate and
polling and so forth, will we?  And if I say something in a message that
I don't want an arriving member to see, I am surely within my rights to
delete it because I am the author, correct?
 
I think we should just have someone with good judgment go through and
scrub the archives, as explained in the proposal (as was done here in
the past and was done on MEG by one of the Mods).  Close questions and
judgment calls can be called to the attention to the poster off-list
("Are you OK if I leave Message X, 'cause Bill may not like it."), which
has also been done in the past.  Then, when the scrubbing is finished,
the Designated Scrubber can post on the list, "OK, I'm all finished
scrubbing now."  Anyone who wishes to double-check that something got
deleted can search and see if it turns up (mistakes do happen and things
do get missed), and we can take it from there, if necessary.  
 
It happened on the Moderator Team that our Designated Scrubber missed an
embarrassing exchange (MEG discussion of how a reliable list member and
future elf had strayed and whether he/she needed a howler), and the only
way it was caught was when another Mod double-checked and she and I did
an "emergency scrub" because the invitation had just gone out and been
accepted.  Yes, this person knew that he/she received a howler, but I
thought his/her embarrassment would be increased by reading all of
*that.*  Surely, we figured, it was more important to spare this new
elf's feelings than to make sure that the record of her infraction and
the reactions thereto be preserved *on MEG.*  Also, there was an
instance when a *really* important post was deleted, possibly because it
mentioned a newcomer by name in the form of a hypothetical and in a
context that wasn't offensive at all ("It would be like if Tom were a
Shipper . . . ")  Again, a bit of judgment and communication are in
order, but we needn't go overboard with this.


>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
> PS - Yes, I know someone is going to say that we only should delete 
>things that are negative, but then, what if someone discussed a few 
>posts, including a post that had a new idea but was written with a 
>few grammar errors, and perhaps posted that "the theory in this 
>needs to be in an FP - as long as we paraphrase, so we don't include 
>that bizzare comma usage!" - well, that is somewhat negative, isn't 
>it, but still a useful bit of information. 
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Like I said, we are trying to come up with a workable overall policy.
We won't be able to craft something that fits every conceivable
hypothetical situation, nor should we try.  And if nothing is ever truly
destroyed - because it resides on the hard drives of most current
members --  I think we'll all be safe.
 
If you want, I would be willing to function as Designated Scrubber (if
we go that route) 'cause I know how to do it.  I'm thinking it would not
be an especially difficult job.
 
Cindy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov  3 18:57:04 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:57:04 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB:  Damn. Scrubbing again.
In-Reply-To: <bo64fh+2cki@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c3a23c$47930220$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
Heidi:
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
 
Accordingly, I don't think *we* the FAQ list had a policy before 
August. I think *you* had a policy and *you* enforced/engaged in it. 


>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Nah, I don't think that's the right way to view it. 
 
Before May, the FAQ list policy was what the Mods in charge
(Cindy/Elk/Mike) said it was.  We scrubbed.  Because we had leaders,
though, folks felt comfortable coming to me off-list and explaining how
they will punch so-and-so in the face if he is invited.  That bit of
history has been lost because I don't keep extensive archives, and other
evidence of what once was may have gone to the Moderator Team Mass
Grave.
 
After May 30, the FAQ list policy was what was implemented -- I scrubbed
and told you I scrubbed.  No one batted an eye.
 
But hey.  There is a rather amusing solution here if we wish to go down
this curious road.  The only people who get the option of having their
pre-May 30, 2003 posts scrubbed are Mike, Neil, Catherine, Parker, John,
Elkins, Cindy, Penny and Kelley.  'Cause the Mods knew about or should
have known about the scrubbing policy here and therefore could have
relied upon it to their detriment.  The rest of you who didn't know are
straight out of luck, unless you can show you also knew about it!  ;-)
 
Nah.  That's probably not a good way to go.
 
Cindy 
 
 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Nov  3 19:26:49 2003
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 19:26:49 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Talk to the right audience
In-Reply-To: <bo62dg+hh90@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo6a5p+u94a@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." 
<cindysphynx at c...> wrote:

> We are fortunate enough to have both of the MEG facilitators 
>(Debbie and Pippin) here as members.

Awp, dammit, the curse of the evil twin strikes again.
 Bluesqueak, otherwise known as Pip, is a MEG facilitator and 
member of this list. 

I am a MEG. I'm not a MEG facilitator and never have been. 

Pippin





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov  3 18:51:46 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 13:51:46 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB:  Autonomy baffles me
In-Reply-To: <bo64lb+bh9m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000801c3a23b$88136b10$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi!
 
Welcome back, Dicey!  I see you've been busy decorating around here;
nice to have you back among the, uh, non-decorators . . .
 
>We needed to know if list admins had the right to delete content at
will
>or whether former members of a list had the right to ask that their
>content be deleted.  Had we discovered that the Yahoo ToU prohibited
>scrubbing or mandated "remote" deletion, that discovery would have
>affected FAQ.  
 
 
 
Would it be all right I ask what MEG learned, and if nothing was
learned, what you decided and why?  Did this investigation concern only
the Yahoo TOS, or did you consider other legal reasons why posts might
need to be deleted (in this context, the reason that comes to mind might
be concerns about knowingly allowing someone to read defamatory
statements about themselves).  And why, if you don't mind, were you
discussing this issue *after* the arrival of new elves, if you are at
liberty to say?  
 
Cindy
 
 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  3 20:47:14 2003
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 15:47:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Harry FP Outline v. 3.0
In-Reply-To: <bo5gll+cqbs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031103204714.14874.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com>

 --- abigailnus <abigailnus at yahoo.com> wrote: > Augh! 
My indentations!  My beautiful indentations! 
> 
> So, you have to imagine that with every level of the
> outline, the text gets 
> indented one column.  It looks really pretty.  I can
> upload a file of it if it's 
> truly unreadable.
> 
It's not at all unreadable. *kicks Yahoomort for
messing with the format*

That said, I think the outline is great. :)

Sheryll

=====
http://www.livejournal.com/community/conventionalley/

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov  3 20:50:42 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 20:50:42 -0000
Subject: Proposed Action Plan:  Request For Contributions
In-Reply-To: <bj7e3f+gb8k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo6f32+eclt@eGroups.com>

Hey,

I've been thinking about how we might get list members to nominate
Fantastic Posts to us.  Here's what I'd recommend . . . 

I think our goal should be to make nominating a post very easy and to
encourage members to believe that we will appreciate and acknowledge
their contribution.

First, I would ask MEG to add a sentence to the Main List Home Page
asking that members nominate FPs, perhaps after the links to the VFAQ
and OoP VFAQs.  We would ask that members click on the link and send
us the message number.  As I said earlier, I think our current process
is too labor-intensive and difficult for list members to execute, and
putting a prominent link on the Main List Home Page would help quite a
lot with this.

Second, I guess we could also make a brief pitch in the footer for all
main list posts, again including a link.  The pitch could be "Is this
a Fantastic Post?  Let us know where to find it at: [link]."  FWIW, I
can't see what the current main list footer says (why is that?), but
perhaps MEG could be coaxed to feature our request prominently?

Third, I'd delete the database (which currently has no entries) and
rely on the other FAQ list instead.  I'd send out the following ADMIN
(the original ADMIN is copied below for reference), and I'd try to
keep it as short and snappy as possible:

**********************

Greetings from the "Fantastic Posts And Where To Find Them" Team!

You remember the "Fantastic Posts," don't you?  Sure you do!

http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/

For months, we've been sharpening our quills and shuffling our
parchment, preparing to crank out *lots* of sparkling, brand-new
essays.  You know, all your favorites -- Harry.  Aurors.  Thestrals. 
And best of all, *Snape's BVDs!*

And then we kind of noticed something.

We, erm, need Fantastic Posts.  Lots of them.

That's where you come in.  If you see a post or a thread you think is
pretty darn good, please take a moment to let us know.  Just send the
message number to [link].  That link is now on the home page of this
list and in the footer of every single post -- that's how much we want
to hear from you!

What's that you say?

<leans over and listens carefully>

"What's in it for *YOU?*" you ask?

*Plenty!*  If you nominate a post, it will not fall through a veil
into the Great Beyond.  Oh, no.  No, you will receive a prompt
acknowledgement and expression of appreciation from a Fantastic Post
team member.  Submit two message numbers and we will stroke you. 
Submit three or more and we will slobber all over you.  You get the
idea.  

So keep an eye out for those Fantastic Posts and tell us Where To Find
Them, OK?

Cindy,
For The Fantastic Posts "Owls"
http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/fpowls.html


***************

Thoughts?  Comments?  Suggestions?  Edits?  MEG?

Cindy

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Original ADMIN]

Dear HPfGU Members,

Hello from the FAQ team! We're in charge of writing the Fantastic
Posts essays, which can be found at

http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/

These essays collect posts on a variety of different subjects,
ranging from The Weasley Family to Justice in the Wizarding World.
They also provide summaries of important and popular theories
such as LOLLIPOPS or George. The Fantastic Posts are a great
asset to group members old and new, providing a coherent
perspective on the ideas that came before us. They also allow us
to save from Yahoo! oblivion those posts which are truly
remarkable and worth remembering.

We on the FAQ team are eager to get to work on updating the old
FPs and writing new ones in the wake of OOP, but we'd like you
all to help us. Have you read a post recently that really made you
think? A well-written post, that offered a new perspective or
submitted a new thoery? In short, have you read a Fantastic Post
recently? If you have, we'd like to hear about it.

Before you get going, a few words on what makes a post Fantastic.
You might want to check out some of the posts referenced in the old
FPs to get an idea of the kind of quality we're looking for. Also,
bear in mind that a a Fantastic Post should:

1. Be well written and coherent
2. Present new ideas or offer a good overview of old ones
3. Have good formatting - good grammar and spelling, capitalization
and punctuation where appropriate, more then one paragraph, etc.

There are three simple ways to let us know about a Fantastic Post:

1. We've opened the FAQ archive group to posting by the general
public. You can e-mail us at

Fantastic_Posts at yahoogroups.com

Please use the following template when sending us a
recommendation e-mail

Fantastic Post number:
Author of Fantastic Post:
Topic of Fantastic Post:
Date of Fantastic Post:

Not all fields have to be filled, but we *must* have the message
number - finding a message in any other way is all but impossible.

2. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
there. The URL is

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/

Simply use the 'Post' link on the sidebar. Again, use the
template above, and be sure to include the message number.

Please note that you do not have to join the group in order
to post. In fact, in order to keep the archives list manageable and
nominations confidential, we are limiting membership to the
Fantastic Posts team.

3. A database has been created on the HPfGU homepage. To get
there, simply go to the homepage and click on the 'Database' link
in the sidebar on the left-hand side of the screen. Scroll down the
list until you find a database entitled 'Fantastic Posts'. Click on the
title and you will be transferred to the database page. From there
you can simply click on the 'add record' link at the top of the table
to make your suggestion. You don't need to fill out all the fields,
but you must include a message number.

Important note: please do *not* forward a message to the archive
group. A forwarded message will not contain a message number,
and that will make it impossible for us to locate it.

Finally, any post you send is only a suggestion. If you look at the
old Fantastic Posts you might notice how few messages they actually
reference. This isn't because these are the only good messages in
over 70,000 posts, but because if we were to include all the fantastic
posts ever made to the group we would drown, and the very purpose
of the FPs is to provide brief and concise overviews of ideas on the list.
We can't promise to use every post you send us, but we do promise
to read and consider every one with all due gravity, no matter who the
author is.

Wishing you happy hunting,

Abigail
For the FAQ team






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov  3 23:03:00 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:03:00 -0000
Subject: MEMB/ADMIN:  Brain Wave on Scrubbing
Message-ID: <bo6mr4+cthf@eGroups.com>

Hey!

I think I have the perfect compromise solution here.

I wonder if Paul can work some magic and make a perfect archive of FAQ
list messages the day before new members join us.  This archive could
be stored somewhere so that current FAQers who wish to have a complete
FAQ message record could have one at their disposal.  New members
would *not* have access -- they would only have the webview archives.
 History would be preserved for those who might wish someday to access
a message that was deleted from webview!

Then the webview archives here would be scrubbed along the lines I
described in my proposal, so those who favor scrubbing would be happy.
 Messages with derogatory references would be deleted, and we could
all be secure in the knowledge that a searchable archive exists should
we ever need it, with everything in the right order and everything.

We would repeat this process each time we bring in a wave of new members.

Does this work for everyone?  Should we ask Paul if this can be done
and then move on?

Cindy 




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  4 00:22:33 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:22:33 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Talk to the right audience
In-Reply-To: <bo61mq+nkqm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo6rg9+6nhb@eGroups.com>

Amanda:
You have not formally asked MEG any of these things. We can discuss 
this all we want over here, but you haven't officially involved MEG 
as a party to the discussion, as yet.

Tom:
Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. 

How exactly does one *ask* MEG to be a party to this discussion? Does 
that mean that we all sign up over there, or you all sign up over 
here? How exactly could MEG and the remaining stragglers of FAQ have 
anything that remotely resembles a discussion? Loathe as I am to hear 
another "non-official opinion from an MEG" on this list again - 
because I really don't see why MEG matters are relevant at *all* 
(except in a very peripheral sense) to what we do over here - I 
would, in this case, appreciate some suggestions for how we might get 
this done.

Will MEG respond to a letter of request with any more celerity than 
it did to my last letter? Will it respond to everything *in* the 
letter, or will it sidestep touchy questions like last time?

Amanda touches on an interesting point. She says that we 
haven't "formally asked" MEG any of these things. And she's right.

And you know what? Speaking as someone who has no say at all, I don't 
think that we have to. I think that any decisions that pertain to the 
governance of FAQ will be decided by FAQ members in the future, and 
MEG will hear about it from us when it happens.

I looked at the OT-Chatter list today (which I very rarely do), and 
boy did I find something interesting.

Hebby Elf signed off an Admin:

"Our Wizarding Leaders - the Rather Eerie Admin Team (OWLTREAT)"

I mean, are the members of MEG serious? The members of MEG fancy 
themselves as "the leaders" of HPfGU?

<Tom laughs.> Guys, *please*!

MEG is not supposed to constitute *leadership*; it's supposed to 
constitute *servitude*. That is to say that the MEG's exist solely to 
make things run smoothly for the rest of us, the disenfranchised. 

They're not here to *lead* or to bask in the delights of being a 
member of an internet "in-crowd." They're here to make things great 
for the rest of us; they're not here to demand credit for what they 
do, not if they're doing it "out of the kindness of their own hearts 
and purely on a volunteer basis" as we're supposed to believe. 
Because "people who do things out of the kindness of their hearts" do 
not demand credit for their actions, by definition.

And this little acronym here really strikes me, that some MEG-ers may 
feel like they're the "leaders" of HPfGU. It strikes me mostly 
because a great many of the MEG-ers do not follow the standards that 
they're trying to hold everyone else to. For instance, the only 
people who have ever been rude to me during my affiliation with HPfGU 
are *all* presently members of MEG. That's interesting, isn't it? And 
I have never received an apology from any of them. And no one on MEG 
ever informed me that disciplinary action was taken. And by any 
accounts it has not been. In other words, the message to a relative 
new person: "I'm a member of MEG, and I can do what I want, on the 
main list and on its subordinates." 


Cindy:
I do not see this list as subordinate to MEG. Not at all. At times, I 
get the impression that some of our MEG members feel differently, and 
it bugs me, frankly.

Tom:
I get that *exact* impression. I feel as though MEG members feel 
completely entitled to do whatever they want. This, of course, makes 
the use of the word "leader" even *more* interesting, when it's 
compared to what's getting *done* on FAQ.

I also feel like some MEG members do not exhibit tact or restraint on 
the main list, or on this "subordinate" list. I feel that in the eyes 
of some of the members of MEG, FAQ is just a bitch-group that does 
essay writing at the whim and demand of our "leaders," and besides, 
MEG members feel basically entitled to be members over here, and even 
have the audacity to request membership in order to "observe," 
whereas a very small group of us over here have absolutely no say in 
anything whatsoever. What can *we* observe?

Which may be a harsh sentiment, sure, but what also strikes me is 
that the overlap members around here don't really seem to be involved 
in any of the ongoing projects. There are several overlap members of 
MEG/FAQ who haven't even *posted* since I've been here. Less than 
half of us are assigned to FP projects that are in the works, and out 
of that less than half, less than half of *those* people are members 
of MEG.

Which indicates to me (and this is not an unfair inference) that it's 
the mostly the non-MEG members who are doing the work on FAQ, while 
the MEG members do... whatever it is that they do when they're not 
clarifying MEG policies for the unenlightened and unprivileged 
amongst us.

On top of it all, thanks to the latest round of MEG additions (which 
I will not comment on here), the non-MEG members of FAQ are now a 
solid minority. Which means that we're really in no position to have 
any say over anything. And that, succinctly worded, stinks.

So, when Amanda writes that "Autonomy baffles [her]," it now makes 
sense to me. The idea of autonomy baffles her (and, I might be 
inclined to think, possibly the rest of the overlap members) mostly 
because she *is* an overlap between the two groups. In other words, 
she's *not* in the dark. When a member of MEG tells us to *wait* on 
something because MEG is working on it, that's fine for over half of 
the members of this group, because all they do is go over to *that* 
group and find out what they want while the rest of us twiddle our 
thumbs and wait for their decision, which may or may not ever come. 
This pattern has stalled productivity over here at least three times 
since I joined this summer.

Amanda is *one* of the "leaders," and so she naturally doesn't 
understand that others might not appreciate this situation as much as 
she does. She's "in the loop," so to speak. So the desire for other 
people to understand what decisions are being made really doesn't 
even register with her, because she *is* one of those people making 
the decisions. *She* knows what's going on.

So, since I'm so very good at digging my own grave (particularly when 
I'm annoyed) I'm thinking that our round of new members shouldn't 
really consist of *any* MEG's. At all. Not one. 

I think that we should get some new people in here, some new people 
who are not tainted with whatever is going on over there. New people 
who don't have obligations over there that are preventing them from 
doing anything over here. And the present overlap members who aren't 
doing anything should shape up or ship out, because as far as I'm 
concerned, being a member of MEG doesn't make you special over here. 
You're either working on FAQ stuff, or you're not. And if you're not, 
then you're dead weight, and you should do what's best for the group 
by leaving.

In addition, FAQ has been repeatedly sullied over the last few months 
because MEG issues continue to rear their heads over here. And 
speaking as someone who was not involved with anything that went down 
over there, this whole thing is really, really annoying. I think I've 
made this point before.

I think that a lack of MEG presence (not counting 
suitable "oversight" and "liaison" capabilities) would be healthy for 
FAQ, and an influx of new ideas coupled with a simultaneous "flushing 
out" some of the stagnant ones will be a good thing for this group... 
we have a dynamic that is over half composed of MEG members who quite 
obviously think of FAQ as of secondary importance. 

I don't want to be considered "secondary." What we need is a dynamic 
where most of the members of FAQ are not involved in MEG, and so in 
the eyes of those people, this group will be of *primary* importance. 
I don't want MEG's hand-me-down attentions, okay?

Some overlap would be fine, even necessary. *Some.* Too much overlap 
(i.e. what we have now), and what we get is this constant bickering 
(which really has *nothing* to do with FAQ), followed by an effort on 
the part of MEG overlap members (not all, but consistently some) to 
defer the whole quandary to MEG. MEG in turn does nothing about the 
issue, or else they do something and don't bother to tell us about it 
(ala my letter to them, or the "scrubbing" issue).

Does anyone else see why this is frustrating?

I say we start by going back to Amanda's suggestion before I start 
citing more examples. We need a *dialogue* with MEG, which means that 
everyone who's not overlapped between the two groups has to be 
included. So how are we going to get that started?

-Tom




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Nov  4 01:04:24 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 01:04:24 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Talk to the right audience
In-Reply-To: <bo6rg9+6nhb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo6tuo+g43g@eGroups.com>

Hey,

Just a few points.  New ones, I promise. . . . 

> Will MEG respond to a letter of request with any more celerity than 
> it did to my last letter? Will it respond to everything *in* the 
> letter, or will it sidestep touchy questions like last time?

Erm, well . . . 

I did get a reply to my message 2432 asking what exactly happened with
the "hang on while MEG discusses the legal technalities" issue.

It was a genuine effort to clarify in some sense, although I still
can't piece this together and said so in my reply.

But there was something in the message I received today that is worth
noting here.  I was asked not to talk about this anymore "on any of
the lists."  I don't know if this was an official MEG directive or
not; the writer was a MEG/FAQ, so I assume she was writing on behalf
of her MEG half because she was talking about what MEG had decided and
why.

What to do, what to do?  Will I be kicked to the curb by MEG if I talk
about scrubbing or "legal technicalities" on FAQ if MEG doesn't want
me to?  Well, if MEG has the power to make decisions for us, then I'll
be shutting up right now, I guess.

Can you see why autonomy might matter to the non-MEGs here?

> I think that we should get some new people in here, some new people 
> who are not tainted with whatever is going on over there. 

Yeah, this has occurred to me too.  What would be so wrong with asking
everyone to choose -- MEG or FAQ?  A few MEGs told me over the summer
that they'd like to retire to the FAQ list, so this is something that
has occurred to a few MEGs.  We could perhaps grow this list to 50
people, all dedicated only to FAQ work and most brand new and ready to
kick it into gear without all of the power struggles we are having now.

>New people 
> who don't have obligations over there that are preventing them from 
> doing anything over here. 

Well.  Yeah.  I've wondered about this.

See, I wonder if our MEG members feel certain pressures that the
non-MEGs don't have.  If a MEG/FAQ had reservations about the
candidacy of a MEG, would they be able to say so without it getting
back to their MEG colleagues?  Is there some unintentional but
inappropriate loyalty?  Would Pickle Jimmy have received an invitation
if he had contacted Amanda?  

The FAQ members have no such worries.  Which is a good thing, IMHO.

Yeah.  Something needs to be done, IMHO.  'Cause this set-up isn't
working.  

Cindy




From dicentra at xmission.com  Tue Nov  4 01:37:51 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (Dicentra spectabilis)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 01:37:51 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Talk to the right audience
In-Reply-To: <bo6rg9+6nhb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo6vtf+fimr@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Tom Wall" <thomasmwall at y...> wrote:

> How exactly does one *ask* MEG to be a party to this discussion? 

Tom, I've forwarded your post to MEG because not everyone over there
is on FAQ.

I'm not speaking for MEG right now, so I can't say what the response
will be nor in what form.  But I hope it will get the ball rolling.

--Dicentra, who is not speaking for MEG




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Nov  4 02:07:23 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 02:07:23 -0000
Subject: Proposed Action Plan:  Request For Contributions
In-Reply-To: <bo6f32+eclt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo71kr+96sm@eGroups.com>

Hey,

Can a MEG copy this post over to MEG?  If it doesn't make sense to
MEGs who aren't FAQ members, you have my permission to copy any of my
posts on this particular issue over to MEG.  

Or, maybe we should wait and see how the discussion develops on FAQ
and then forward everything?  Your call.

Cindy

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I've been thinking about how we might get list members to nominate
> Fantastic Posts to us.  Here's what I'd recommend . . . 
> 
> I think our goal should be to make nominating a post very easy and to
> encourage members to believe that we will appreciate and acknowledge
> their contribution.
> 
> First, I would ask MEG to add a sentence to the Main List Home Page
> asking that members nominate FPs, perhaps after the links to the VFAQ
> and OoP VFAQs.  We would ask that members click on the link and send
> us the message number.  As I said earlier, I think our current process
> is too labor-intensive and difficult for list members to execute, and
> putting a prominent link on the Main List Home Page would help quite a
> lot with this.
> 
> Second, I guess we could also make a brief pitch in the footer for all
> main list posts, again including a link.  The pitch could be "Is this
> a Fantastic Post?  Let us know where to find it at: [link]."  FWIW, I
> can't see what the current main list footer says (why is that?), but
> perhaps MEG could be coaxed to feature our request prominently?
> 
> Third, I'd delete the database (which currently has no entries) and
> rely on the other FAQ list instead.  I'd send out the following ADMIN
> (the original ADMIN is copied below for reference), and I'd try to
> keep it as short and snappy as possible:
> 
> **********************
> 
> Greetings from the "Fantastic Posts And Where To Find Them" Team!
> 
> You remember the "Fantastic Posts," don't you?  Sure you do!
> 
> http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/
> 
> For months, we've been sharpening our quills and shuffling our
> parchment, preparing to crank out *lots* of sparkling, brand-new
> essays.  You know, all your favorites -- Harry.  Aurors.  Thestrals. 
> And best of all, *Snape's BVDs!*
> 
> And then we kind of noticed something.
> 
> We, erm, need Fantastic Posts.  Lots of them.
> 
> That's where you come in.  If you see a post or a thread you think is
> pretty darn good, please take a moment to let us know.  Just send the
> message number to [link].  That link is now on the home page of this
> list and in the footer of every single post -- that's how much we want
> to hear from you!
> 
> What's that you say?
> 
> <leans over and listens carefully>
> 
> "What's in it for *YOU?*" you ask?
> 
> *Plenty!*  If you nominate a post, it will not fall through a veil
> into the Great Beyond.  Oh, no.  No, you will receive a prompt
> acknowledgement and expression of appreciation from a Fantastic Post
> team member.  Submit two message numbers and we will stroke you. 
> Submit three or more and we will slobber all over you.  You get the
> idea.  
> 
> So keep an eye out for those Fantastic Posts and tell us Where To Find
> Them, OK?
> 
> Cindy,
> For The Fantastic Posts "Owls"
> http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/fpowls.html
> 
> 
> ***************
> 
> Thoughts?  Comments?  Suggestions?  Edits?  MEG?
> 
> Cindy
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> [Original ADMIN]
> 
> Dear HPfGU Members,
> 
> Hello from the FAQ team! We're in charge of writing the Fantastic
> Posts essays, which can be found at
> 
> http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/
> 
> These essays collect posts on a variety of different subjects,
> ranging from The Weasley Family to Justice in the Wizarding World.
> They also provide summaries of important and popular theories
> such as LOLLIPOPS or George. The Fantastic Posts are a great
> asset to group members old and new, providing a coherent
> perspective on the ideas that came before us. They also allow us
> to save from Yahoo! oblivion those posts which are truly
> remarkable and worth remembering.
> 
> We on the FAQ team are eager to get to work on updating the old
> FPs and writing new ones in the wake of OOP, but we'd like you
> all to help us. Have you read a post recently that really made you
> think? A well-written post, that offered a new perspective or
> submitted a new thoery? In short, have you read a Fantastic Post
> recently? If you have, we'd like to hear about it.
> 
> Before you get going, a few words on what makes a post Fantastic.
> You might want to check out some of the posts referenced in the old
> FPs to get an idea of the kind of quality we're looking for. Also,
> bear in mind that a a Fantastic Post should:
> 
> 1. Be well written and coherent
> 2. Present new ideas or offer a good overview of old ones
> 3. Have good formatting - good grammar and spelling, capitalization
> and punctuation where appropriate, more then one paragraph, etc.
> 
> There are three simple ways to let us know about a Fantastic Post:
> 
> 1. We've opened the FAQ archive group to posting by the general
> public. You can e-mail us at
> 
> Fantastic_Posts at yahoogroups.com
> 
> Please use the following template when sending us a
> recommendation e-mail
> 
> Fantastic Post number:
> Author of Fantastic Post:
> Topic of Fantastic Post:
> Date of Fantastic Post:
> 
> Not all fields have to be filled, but we *must* have the message
> number - finding a message in any other way is all but impossible.
> 
> 2. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
> you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
> there. The URL is
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/
> 
> Simply use the 'Post' link on the sidebar. Again, use the
> template above, and be sure to include the message number.
> 
> Please note that you do not have to join the group in order
> to post. In fact, in order to keep the archives list manageable and
> nominations confidential, we are limiting membership to the
> Fantastic Posts team.
> 
> 3. A database has been created on the HPfGU homepage. To get
> there, simply go to the homepage and click on the 'Database' link
> in the sidebar on the left-hand side of the screen. Scroll down the
> list until you find a database entitled 'Fantastic Posts'. Click on the
> title and you will be transferred to the database page. From there
> you can simply click on the 'add record' link at the top of the table
> to make your suggestion. You don't need to fill out all the fields,
> but you must include a message number.
> 
> Important note: please do *not* forward a message to the archive
> group. A forwarded message will not contain a message number,
> and that will make it impossible for us to locate it.
> 
> Finally, any post you send is only a suggestion. If you look at the
> old Fantastic Posts you might notice how few messages they actually
> reference. This isn't because these are the only good messages in
> over 70,000 posts, but because if we were to include all the fantastic
> posts ever made to the group we would drown, and the very purpose
> of the FPs is to provide brief and concise overviews of ideas on the
list.
> We can't promise to use every post you send us, but we do promise
> to read and consider every one with all due gravity, no matter who the
> author is.
> 
> Wishing you happy hunting,
> 
> Abigail
> For the FAQ team




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Nov  4 16:06:23 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:06:23 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB:  Talk to the right audience
In-Reply-To: <bo6vtf+fimr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo8ipv+tuf7@eGroups.com>

Hey,

Dicey wrote:

> Tom, I've forwarded your post to MEG because not everyone over there
> is on FAQ.

Dicey, could I ask that you do the same the posts on the autonomy
issue?  I suppose the first message that MEG might find helpful as it
discusses our autonomy might be Amanda's Message 2412 and all of those
that follow.

Does anyone, especially those who wrote a post on that thread, object
if this is done?

Sorry to impose, and let me know if you aren't available to do this. 
I'd do it myself, but I can't send anything to MEG itself, and I can't
be sure that anything I send to the main list e-mail address goes to
every MEG now that Yahoo limited the number of Mods.  Besides, if I
forward lots of messages at once from webview, my experience is that
Yahoomort will foul them up and they will arrive in the wrong order.

Thanks!

Cindy




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Nov  4 16:28:20 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:28:20 -0000
Subject: Carolyn 
In-Reply-To: <blu0ah+e7u1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo8k34+gm8s@eGroups.com>

Hey!

I'm reviewing the archives to put together something on another issue,
and I came across this draft of a letter to Carolyn.  Did this go out?
 Did we get a reply?  If it has not gone out, do we want to change it
to reflect our reservations about Carolyn's proposal?

There's a chance the answer to these questions is just something I
missed.  I figured I'd better flag this for follow-up, though.

Cindy

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:
> --- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pipdowns at e...> wrote:
> > This was sent to the admin Team at the owner address. After reading 
> > it, it seems more in FAQ's remit, so I'm forwarding it here.
> 
> <snip Carolyn's message>
> 
> I did a Yahoomort search on her (her handle is a_reader2003 in case
anyone 
> else is interested).  Her style is good, and if she's this
interested so early on 
> then she may be a valuable asset.  My only problem is that she's
been a member 
> for less then three months.  Now, obviously this would disqualify
her from being 
> a list elf, but is it that important in an FP writer?
> 
> I was thinking of writing her something like this:
> 
> Carolyn,
> 
> You know you should always be careful about making suggestions to 
> management, right?  You'll end up carrying them out yourself.  
> 
> I'm writing on behalf of the HPfGU FAQ team.  We're in charge of
writing the 
> essays on the Fantastic Posts website.  Your message regarding a
possible 
> cataloguing of HPfGU's posts was forwarded to us by the list admins, as 
> someone who might like to join us.  We have in fact already implemented 
> something similar to what you suggested - a cataloguing of some 30,000 
> messages according to topic terms.  We use that catalogue to
identify posts 
> which are later used in FP essays.  We were wondering if you'd like
to join us 
> in writing these essays, a task that has become doubly important
following 
> the release of OOP.
> 
> If this sounds like something you might enjoy doing, send me a reply
and I'll 
> send you an invite.
> 
> Abigail
> 
> Yeah, it needs work.  Any suggestions?
> 
> Regarding Maria, she's been a member for quite some time, and also
writes well.  
> I'm not sure exactly how she got to us or why she wants to join. 
Does anyone 
> want me to ask her, or should I just approve her membership?
> 
> Abigail




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Nov  4 16:50:21 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:50:21 -0000
Subject: MEMB/ADMIN:  Brain Wave on Scrubbing
In-Reply-To: <bo6mr4+cthf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo8lcd+i5pg@eGroups.com>

Hi again!

It's been quiet here today, but I do want to keep moving us forward on
deciding this issue of scrubbing.  If we let it languish, memories
will fade and we'll be retracing our steps again in the future.  Also,
we can't bring in new people until we kill this beast, so let's see if
we can nail it.

Remember, "scrubbing" refers to the deletion of offensive mentions of
new members before they arrive, as I explained in my proposals
(Messages 2422 and 2435) on this.   Briefly, the stated positions (and
a pertinent quote where I could find one) are:

AGAINST SCRUBBING

Heidi -- against; suggested posts to be scrubbed be flagged here for
group discussion

Amanda -- does not consent for her posts to be deleted by anyone other
than herself

Abigail -- against because we may "delete the only record of our
history, and we may end up losing vital information"

Sheryll -- against

Pippin -- "I suggested we leave the prefixed posts in the list archive
and adopt an honor system. No snooping, no leaking."



FOR SCRUBBING

Derannimer -- "if we're doing it to prevent them from reading frank
assessments of themselves."

Tom -- "I'm in favor of it, on the basis of hurt feelings and hurt
feelings alone."

Cindy -- in favor of scrubbing and maintaining a record of deleted
messages elsewhere 

ABSTAINING

David -- avoids the issue by watching his words


All right.  I may well have missed someone; if I did, please do weigh
in.  I probably *butchered* some of your positions in an effort to
keep this brief; if so, know that it was unintentional and feel free
to clarify where you stand.

In the meantime, I guess we have two choices.  We can have a vote, or
we can find a consensus solution.  I have my fingers crossed that we
have found a consensus solution that avoids all of the pitfalls of
scrubbing that some of our members have identified.  The proposal is
in Messages 2422 and 2435.

So.  <deep breath>

Are there any real, good faith objections anyone can articulate to
proceeding in the manner I outlined?  This is Tuesday.  How about if
no one raises an objection that we start putting this plan into action
on Saturday?  We will then be in a position to return to the selection
of new members, hopefully.

Finally, *if* we did adopt the scrubbing compromise I proposed, there
will be two types of work generated.  Someone will have to do the
actual work of scrubbing.  Someone will have to be in charge of taking
steps to maintain an unscrubbed archive for those interested in such
an archive (contact Paul, set up new FAQ Yahoo group, etc.)

I volunteered to do scrubbing work, but I am willing to defer if
someone else wishes to do this.

Are there any volunteers to set up and maintain the unscrubbed FAQ
archives for the benefit of the current membership but without access
to arriving members?  

Cindy 




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  4 21:30:57 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 21:30:57 -0000
Subject: Harry FP Outline v. 3.0
In-Reply-To: <bo5g3o+d5sr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo95qh+f3ri@eGroups.com>

Abigail, I think your Harry outline is fabulous.  And thank you for 
providing the resource on Harry posts - I think it will make it 
easier for people (like me) to get started.

I'd like to tackle the Heir of Gryffindor and Harry's abilities 
sections unless someone else was planning to do those.

~Phyllis




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  4 22:59:20 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:59:20 -0000
Subject: Harry FP Outline v. 3.0
In-Reply-To: <bo95qh+f3ri@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo9b08+286v@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" <erisedstraeh2002 at y...> wrote:
 
> I'd like to tackle the Heir of Gryffindor and Harry's abilities 
> sections unless someone else was planning to do those.
> 

Sounds good.  I was thinking of starting from the top (Harry's early life) and 
working my way down.

Abigail




From dicentra at xmission.com  Wed Nov  5 01:22:15 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (Dicentra spectabilis)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 01:22:15 -0000
Subject: PUFFs: Harry FP Outline v. 3.0
In-Reply-To: <bo5g3o+d5sr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bo9jc7+5rp8@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:

> 	1.4 Harry's relationships with adults 
> 		1.4.1 Harry's father figures
> 		1.4.2 Harry's mother figures
> 		1.4.3 Harry and Sirius
> 		1.4.4 Harry and Dumbledore
> 		1.4.5 Harry and Snape
> 		1.4.6 Harry and other adult figures (Hagrid, Lupin, Bagman, Fudge)
> 		1.4.7 Generational parallels between Harry and adult characters  
> 			 living and dead


I'd be willing to take section 1.4 for starters.  I guess the first
step in writing this is to collect relevant post numbers.  That should
keep us busy until well into the new year. :D

--Dicentra




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Nov  5 12:34:27 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 12:34:27 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Brainstorming
Message-ID: <boaqoj+30b7@eGroups.com>

Hey,

I just had an idea that might help us keep track of some things.

Yahoo groups come with a calendar.  Maybe we should enter key dates in
the calendar, and this would help us remember when various things
happened without having to search for them.  

So, for instance, I would like to add to the calendar the dates of any
requests we make of MEG, internal deadlines, the dates we receive
inquiries from listies, things like that.

One question, though.  I know that *I* can edit the calendar because I
have Mod privileges here.  Can those without Mod privileges also edit
the calendar? Can someone without Mod privileges go to the calendar
and see if they have an option to "Add event"?

Does this sound like a plan?

Also, I took the liberty of adding the Mysteries FP Team to the list
of FPs in progress.  I chose Durmstrang for our team name.

Lastly, I notice that the Harry team is on fire, and that's super. 
Some of the early posts didn't carry the Hufflepuff prefix, although
Dicey alertly added it.  We're still using the prefixing system,
right?  Maybe we should try to be careful about using the prefix to
help folks manage the list volume here.

Cindy -- who thinks Wesley Clark looks like a million bucks in a black
turtleneck <swoon>




From elfundeb at comcast.net  Wed Nov  5 13:35:57 2003
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:35:57 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Clarification on MEG-FAQ Relationship
Message-ID: <boaubt+dn3t@eGroups.com>

It is apparent from recent discussions on this list that the issue of
authority over and within the FAQ group is unclear. The following 
statement
is HP4GU's list administration (MEG)'s policy, including authority 
over the
FAQ list:

MEG is the single, overarching body that administrates the entire 
family of
HPfGU lists, including the Main list, OTChatter, Movie, FAQ, 
Announcements
and Convention. As such, MEG is responsible for deciding and enforcing
policy for these lists, and directly moderates the public lists. The 
FAQ
group is somewhat different from the public groups in that its 
function is
to review posts to the main list and write essays (with links) about 
them.
FAQ is, by definition, purpose, and raison d'etre, a support list of 
HP4GU.
FAQ is run as a semi-autonomous list, meaning that members of FAQ are
responsible for much of the governance and certain policy decisions 
of the
list. Ultimately, however, as one of the HP4GU family of lists, FAQ 
does
fall under the authority of MEG. This means that FAQ must be in open
communication with MEG, and that the FAQ list must adhere to those 
policies
that MEG determines apply to all of the lists in the HP4GU family of 
lists.

In order to ensure that open, two-way communication is mantained 
between
FAQ and MEG, we would like to have a liaison who is a member of both 
groups,
someone who will be able to make sure questions and comments that 
affect
both groups are properly addressed. We intend for this person to be 
agreed
upon by members of both groups, and so will take nominations for a 
liaison.
In the interim, we are appointing Abigail to serve as a liaison until 
one can be
elected. The
liaison's role is not to act as an administrator but to offer a clear 
and
coherent
channel of communication with MEG. Official comments by MEG will come 
only
from the liaison, and he or she will be responsible for relaying 
questions
or
requests from FAQ to MEG, as well as relaying MEG's response.

We (MEG) also wish to make it clear that the purpose of this FAQ list 
is to
create FPs to be published and made available to HP4GU list members. 
As
such, this is not a forum for discussion of MEG issues, and issues of 
that
type raised here will not be discussed by MEG. We do read every e-mail
addressed to -Owner, so any concerns can be sent there, and we will 
get back to
you as quickly as we can. Since our primary concern is that people 
enjoy reading
and
posting to the public lists, addressing those issues is our priority, 
and we
deal with more general matters as we have time.

Sincerely,

HPFGU List Administration






From editor at texas.net  Wed Nov  5 14:26:22 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:26:22 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: Adjustment of mod powers
Message-ID: <bob1ae+2sjf@eGroups.com>

Members of FAQ--

As some of you may know, over a year ago, there was a disaffected 
member of the main list. She had issues with some of the then-
moderators of the list.

A friend of this person hacked into the account of two of the 
moderators; they set one of them to have the power to "delete list" 
and did just that. Deleted the entire main list. Everything. Gone.

The then-admin team leaped into action; and with great difficulty, 
managed to get the files restored; and set up security measures to 
avoid this type of occurrence in future.

We are a much, much larger list now and the potential for 
disaffection, with the commensurate lessening of personal 
relationships and familiarity, is larger as well. Because of this, 
all members of the admin team observe certain security precautions,
still.

One of the measures that had been implemented on all HPfGU lists up 
to now, aside from this one, is controlling who has the ability to 
change the moderator powers of other moderators. Understand: there 
are several "moderator powers": approving posts, approving members, 
removing members, banning people, changing other moderators' 
abilities, and deleting the list. A moderator is anyone who exercises
*any* of these powers.

A moderator with the ability to change others' abilities is able to 
go in and add or delete powers to other moderators. Up until 
yesterday, *everyone* who was a moderator on this list had this power.
Something like 31 of us.

The outbreak of controversy on this list has sharpened our concern
that this list had so many people with this power and did not observe
this security measure as the other HP4GU lists do. Any one of the
moderators on this list could be hacked into and this list deleted.
Or any one of the moderators on this list could themselves do this.
This is how we lost the main list. And that was a terrible time and
we never want to go through that again; we can't even contemplate the
amount of dedicated work that would be lost if anything happened to
the FAQ list.

So, because of these security concerns, night before last, three MEGs
[Amanda, Dicey, and Kelley] made an executive decision and made the
following changes:

-- Everyone who was a moderator, is still a moderator.
-- We removed the ability to ban and to change other people's 
settings from all but the following people (all familiar with the 
personal security measures, as well):
Ali
Abigail
Heidi
Paul K.
Debbie
Sheryll
Phyllis
--Following this action, yesterday morning Sheryll also deleted 
the "remove members" ability, closing another security concern.

We stress: this was an interim security measure and has not changed
anyone's moderator status. No further changes will be made without
FAQ's input.

We further stress: as an interim measure, it can and should be 
revisited. FAQ is an HP4GU list and MEG will be a part of the 
decision as to who has moderator authority and/or powers on FAQ, but 
the FAQ members and FAQ input are a vital factor as well. When a non-
interim MEG liaison has been identified, and an optimal number of 
moderators determined, that liaison will work with FAQ to organize a 
moderator selection process.

~Amanda





From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  5 15:14:30 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:14:30 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: Adjustment of mod powers
In-Reply-To: <bob1ae+2sjf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bob44m+hkub@eGroups.com>


Um, can we say dictatorial crack-down?

Tom, disgusted, who is going to go and draft a more thorough, 
complete, and totally public response to this nonsense.




From dicentra at xmission.com  Wed Nov  5 16:44:04 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (Dicentra spectabilis)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:44:04 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: Adjustment of mod powers
In-Reply-To: <bob1ae+2sjf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bob9ck+81vk@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:

> So, because of these security concerns, night before last, three MEGs
> [Amanda, Dicey, and Kelley] made an executive decision and made the
> following changes:

*sigh*

A typo crept into this last draft.  "Dicey" should read "Sheryll." 
Dicey was fast asleep when the decision was made.

--Dicey




From editor at texas.net  Wed Nov  5 18:17:23 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:17:23 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: Adjustment of mod powers
In-Reply-To: <bob9ck+81vk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <boberj+vdfl@eGroups.com>

> A typo crept into this last draft.  "Dicey" should read "Sheryll." 
> Dicey was fast asleep when the decision was made.

Actually, it was Debbie. My fingers got the "D" part right. Apologies 
to Dicey. *bangs head on keyboard*

~Amanda, typist extraordinaire






From dicentra at xmission.com  Wed Nov  5 19:18:27 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (Dicentra spectabilis)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:18:27 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: Adjustment of mod powers
In-Reply-To: <boberj+vdfl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bobie3+ulks@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:
> > A typo crept into this last draft.  "Dicey" should read "Sheryll." 
> > Dicey was fast asleep when the decision was made.
> 
> Actually, it was Debbie. My fingers got the "D" part right. Apologies 
> to Dicey. *bangs head on keyboard*

My apologies to Sheryll, then.  I should have done my research.

--Dicey




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Wed Nov  5 23:47:28 2003
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:47:28 -0000
Subject: Resignation
Message-ID: <boc26g+gg3o@eGroups.com>

Yes, I'm resigning. I don't get paid to do this and there are much
funner things to do. I joined the list with the hope of writing FAQs.
There has been barely any FAQ work since the heady early days of
cataloguing one year ago. Instead, the MEG outburst, of which I know
only through dark rumour, has spread onto this list. 

On a personal note, there is something very *insulting* about hearing
time after time that only the MEG members are privy to this, that, and
the other question. *Important* questions come up, and we're told that
it's MEG business. It strikes me that there is no reason why the FAQ
membership is separate from the MEG membership.

The only reason I can think of is not exactly pleasant. I know bloody
well that I'm persona non grata on MEG. I can't think what I did to
deserve it, commit the heinous sin of writing TBAY posts, anyone?,
'associate' with the wrong people?, but it's pretty obvious that I was
blacklisted by certain parties on MEG. The invitations went out to
everyone but me. You can imagine that my feelings were hurt, but I've
stayed silent about it for more than a year now. At times, it seems
that I lucked out by being given the cold shoulder. 

However, despite this slap in the face from MEG, I volunteered to go
on the FAQ team because I really did want to work on the FAQs. Well,
guess what? Here we are. The same people who are part of
administration that blacklisted me are now running the FAQ. And I can
only assume that some of you dislike me very much. That's not a
comfortable situation to be in. 

Add to that this constant harping that we need to be watched closely
by MEG so as not to go off with the silverware or do anything else
horrible and unmandated, and I can only come to the conclusion that
this whole set-up takes my slave labour and gives me nothing in return
except snide reprimands and a feeling of inferiority. I'm not a
house-elf. I don't thrive on that. 

MEG wants to control the FAQs. Fine. MEG writes the FAQs. 

I'm handing in my resignation a week in advance. I'll make sure to
post my Weasley outline before I go, just in case you want to use it. 

Eileen




From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  5 22:21:51 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 22:21:51 -0000
Subject: ADMIN: Adjustment of mod powers
In-Reply-To: <bob1ae+2sjf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bobt5v+3n6b@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:
> the FAQ members and FAQ input are a vital factor as well. 

Oh, are we? Gosh, I am SO flattered. Really, I am flattered beyond 
words. Aren't we all immensely, amazingly flattered to learn that FAQ 
members are a factor in the decisions concerning FAQ? 

A while ago we were trying to decide for a poetic name to call the 
FAQers, remember? Well, I guess that decision was already taken care 
of.

Anyway, I'm glad to see we have a decision on what is the ruling 
regime around here. 

Ja,

Factor Morgan




From heidilist at tandys.org  Thu Nov  6 18:17:06 2003
From: heidilist at tandys.org (Heidi)
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:17:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Fwd: Change of Email Address
Message-ID: <20031106181706.25383.qmail@web60309.mail.yahoo.com>



> As we reach the end of the year, I thought it was
> finally time to get myself an easy-to-remember email
> address - plus the domain I had long coveted was now
> available!
> 
> So you can now reach me at heidi at tandys.org!
 
> Please make the change in your address book. I'll be
> using the old netbox one for a few more days, and
> I'll
> check that box every few days for the next couple of
> months, but heidi at tandys.org is really the best way
> to
> reach me. 
> 
> Best wishes for the colder season (except for those
> Down Under, who are approaching summer),
> 
> Heidi
> 




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  7 02:48:45 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:48:45 -0000
Subject: Question for non-MEGs
Message-ID: <bof16d+ck6s@eGroups.com>

Question:

Not counting the overlaps from MEG who have - well - shall we say 
*other* motivations for not liking policy discussions, are there any 
non-MEG FAQ members who are insulted and/or do not approve of policy 
discussions regarding the FAQ list?

-Tom




From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  7 11:00:41 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 11:00:41 -0000
Subject: Question for non-MEGs
In-Reply-To: <bof16d+ck6s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bofu0p+cvto@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Tom Wall" <thomasmwall at y...> wrote:
> Question:
> 
> Not counting the overlaps from MEG who have - well - shall we say 
> *other* motivations for not liking policy discussions, are there 
any 
> non-MEG FAQ members who are insulted and/or do not approve of 
policy 
> discussions regarding the FAQ list?

My internet provider chose this very moment to desert me -- I've been 
told that full recovery won't be possible before 48 hours. I'm using 
dial-up, so I can't stay long.

Therefore, I'm just dropping by to say "Aye" to Tom's question. Sorry 
for not elaborating for the moment.

Ja,
Morgan D.




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  7 16:44:10 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:44:10 -0000
Subject: Proposed Action Plan:  Request For Contributions
In-Reply-To: <bo6f32+eclt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bogi4q+ogce@eGroups.com>

I've forwarded this to MEG for their comments.  My own personal feelings 
are that the database should have been deleted ages ago, and that placing a 
footer on all messages is a little crass.  I'm undecided as to adding a line to 
the main page.

Honestly, I have my doubts about this project, although I suppose it has a 
better chance of working now that the main list isn't so crowded.

Abigail 

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I've been thinking about how we might get list members to nominate
> Fantastic Posts to us.  Here's what I'd recommend . . . 
> 
> I think our goal should be to make nominating a post very easy and to
> encourage members to believe that we will appreciate and acknowledge
> their contribution.
> 
> First, I would ask MEG to add a sentence to the Main List Home Page
> asking that members nominate FPs, perhaps after the links to the VFAQ
> and OoP VFAQs.  We would ask that members click on the link and send
> us the message number.  As I said earlier, I think our current process
> is too labor-intensive and difficult for list members to execute, and
> putting a prominent link on the Main List Home Page would help quite a
> lot with this.
> 
> Second, I guess we could also make a brief pitch in the footer for all
> main list posts, again including a link.  The pitch could be "Is this
> a Fantastic Post?  Let us know where to find it at: [link]."  FWIW, I
> can't see what the current main list footer says (why is that?), but
> perhaps MEG could be coaxed to feature our request prominently?
> 
> Third, I'd delete the database (which currently has no entries) and
> rely on the other FAQ list instead.  I'd send out the following ADMIN
> (the original ADMIN is copied below for reference), and I'd try to
> keep it as short and snappy as possible:
> 
> **********************
> 
> Greetings from the "Fantastic Posts And Where To Find Them" Team!
> 
> You remember the "Fantastic Posts," don't you?  Sure you do!
> 
> http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/
> 
> For months, we've been sharpening our quills and shuffling our
> parchment, preparing to crank out *lots* of sparkling, brand-new
> essays.  You know, all your favorites -- Harry.  Aurors.  Thestrals. 
> And best of all, *Snape's BVDs!*
> 
> And then we kind of noticed something.
> 
> We, erm, need Fantastic Posts.  Lots of them.
> 
> That's where you come in.  If you see a post or a thread you think is
> pretty darn good, please take a moment to let us know.  Just send the
> message number to [link].  That link is now on the home page of this
> list and in the footer of every single post -- that's how much we want
> to hear from you!
> 
> What's that you say?
> 
> <leans over and listens carefully>
> 
> "What's in it for *YOU?*" you ask?
> 
> *Plenty!*  If you nominate a post, it will not fall through a veil
> into the Great Beyond.  Oh, no.  No, you will receive a prompt
> acknowledgement and expression of appreciation from a Fantastic Post
> team member.  Submit two message numbers and we will stroke you. 
> Submit three or more and we will slobber all over you.  You get the
> idea.  
> 
> So keep an eye out for those Fantastic Posts and tell us Where To Find
> Them, OK?
> 
> Cindy,
> For The Fantastic Posts "Owls"
> http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/fpowls.html
> 
> 
> ***************
> 
> Thoughts?  Comments?  Suggestions?  Edits?  MEG?
> 
> Cindy
> 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> [Original ADMIN]
> 
> Dear HPfGU Members,
> 
> Hello from the FAQ team! We're in charge of writing the Fantastic
> Posts essays, which can be found at
> 
> http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/
> 
> These essays collect posts on a variety of different subjects,
> ranging from The Weasley Family to Justice in the Wizarding World.
> They also provide summaries of important and popular theories
> such as LOLLIPOPS or George. The Fantastic Posts are a great
> asset to group members old and new, providing a coherent
> perspective on the ideas that came before us. They also allow us
> to save from Yahoo! oblivion those posts which are truly
> remarkable and worth remembering.
> 
> We on the FAQ team are eager to get to work on updating the old
> FPs and writing new ones in the wake of OOP, but we'd like you
> all to help us. Have you read a post recently that really made you
> think? A well-written post, that offered a new perspective or
> submitted a new thoery? In short, have you read a Fantastic Post
> recently? If you have, we'd like to hear about it.
> 
> Before you get going, a few words on what makes a post Fantastic.
> You might want to check out some of the posts referenced in the old
> FPs to get an idea of the kind of quality we're looking for. Also,
> bear in mind that a a Fantastic Post should:
> 
> 1. Be well written and coherent
> 2. Present new ideas or offer a good overview of old ones
> 3. Have good formatting - good grammar and spelling, capitalization
> and punctuation where appropriate, more then one paragraph, etc.
> 
> There are three simple ways to let us know about a Fantastic Post:
> 
> 1. We've opened the FAQ archive group to posting by the general
> public. You can e-mail us at
> 
> Fantastic_Posts at yahoogroups.com
> 
> Please use the following template when sending us a
> recommendation e-mail
> 
> Fantastic Post number:
> Author of Fantastic Post:
> Topic of Fantastic Post:
> Date of Fantastic Post:
> 
> Not all fields have to be filled, but we *must* have the message
> number - finding a message in any other way is all but impossible.
> 
> 2. You can also reach the archive group homepage the same way
> you might go to the HPfGU homepage and post a message from
> there. The URL is
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fantastic_Posts/
> 
> Simply use the 'Post' link on the sidebar. Again, use the
> template above, and be sure to include the message number.
> 
> Please note that you do not have to join the group in order
> to post. In fact, in order to keep the archives list manageable and
> nominations confidential, we are limiting membership to the
> Fantastic Posts team.
> 
> 3. A database has been created on the HPfGU homepage. To get
> there, simply go to the homepage and click on the 'Database' link
> in the sidebar on the left-hand side of the screen. Scroll down the
> list until you find a database entitled 'Fantastic Posts'. Click on the
> title and you will be transferred to the database page. From there
> you can simply click on the 'add record' link at the top of the table
> to make your suggestion. You don't need to fill out all the fields,
> but you must include a message number.
> 
> Important note: please do *not* forward a message to the archive
> group. A forwarded message will not contain a message number,
> and that will make it impossible for us to locate it.
> 
> Finally, any post you send is only a suggestion. If you look at the
> old Fantastic Posts you might notice how few messages they actually
> reference. This isn't because these are the only good messages in
> over 70,000 posts, but because if we were to include all the fantastic
> posts ever made to the group we would drown, and the very purpose
> of the FPs is to provide brief and concise overviews of ideas on the list.
> We can't promise to use every post you send us, but we do promise
> to read and consider every one with all due gravity, no matter who the
> author is.
> 
> Wishing you happy hunting,
> 
> Abigail
> For the FAQ team




From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  7 16:49:08 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:49:08 -0000
Subject: Question for non-MEGs
In-Reply-To: <bofu0p+cvto@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bogie4+6nh9@eGroups.com>

I've been told my answer was confusing, and yes, I realise it was. 
Too many thoughts in a hurry, with dreadful results.

Anyway, months ago, when we were discussing what would be our ruling 
regime and our linkage to MEG, some of you started muffling the 
discussion and urging us all to work, not talk. I wrote a long 
message saying why I thought that was a poor decision, that we would 
only be postpoing the problems and making it a lot worse. Regardless, 
the general reation was "let's work, not talk". 

So here we are. Again. FAQ made no decisions, and now MEG dictates 
what FAQ must do. Which is, basically, "work, don't talk". 

Am I happy? No way.

Do I like the way MEG has been conducting business? Not at all.

Do I see a way out for FAQ? Not really. 

Would I like to have policies regarding FAQ seriously discussed here? 
Yes, but honestly, I think it's too late. I think FAQ could now 
discuss our policies to Doomsday, and it wouldn't make a difference. 
More to the point, I think FAQ policies will *not* be seriously 
discussed here even if MEG gives us permission to do so. There's just 
too many MEGs and ex-MEGs here, too much resentment creeping in the 
dark, too much we are not allowed to mention because it rubs on old 
scars. Non-MEGs like me would start making suggestions based on 
logic, on work strategy, on convenience -- while the MEGs and ex-MEGs 
would be talking about intrigue, betrayal, coup d'etats, and general 
paranoia. What would be the point?

I'd love to see FAQ problems discussed FOR REAL. I don't think it's 
possible. And I don't want to be told by MEG, "well, you can discuss, 
but we don't have to listen to you, do we?" I feel it would be a 
waste of saliva and energy. So unless anyone has a proposition about 
how we can discuss all this crap for real, I'm opposed to it. I'm not 
in the mood for farcical debates. I'd be insulted to be dragged to 
one.

Maybe non-MEGs should just leave and let MEG alone to deal with their 
Boggarts in the closet. 

(Ouch, my phone bill!) 

Ja,
Morgan D.




From HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com  Fri Nov  7 21:02:43 2003
From: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com (HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 7 Nov 2003 21:02:43 -0000
Subject: Reminder - Scrubbing 
Message-ID: <1068238963.34.78207.m12@yahoogroups.com>


We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.

Scrubbing 

Date: Saturday, November 8, 2003 
Time: 4:00PM - 5:00PM EST (GMT-05:00) 

Compromise solution to be adopted if no objections lodged 

 





From heidilist at tandys.org  Fri Nov  7 21:33:36 2003
From: heidilist at tandys.org (heiditandy)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:33:36 -0000
Subject: MEMB/ADMIN:  Brain Wave on Scrubbing
In-Reply-To: <bo6mr4+cthf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <boh33g+20dh@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:
> I wonder if Paul can work some magic and make a perfect archive of 
FAQ
> list messages the day before new members join us.  This archive 
could
> be stored somewhere so that current FAQers who wish to have a 
complete
> FAQ message record could have one at their disposal.  New members
> would *not* have access -- they would only have the webview 
archives.
>  History would be preserved for those who might wish someday to 
access
> a message that was deleted from webview!


The only problem I see with this is that new members wouldn't then 
have access to any useful information in those posts at all, period, 
and what would happen if there was information in those posts that 
is useful for FP-generation?

Here's a version of Cindy's proposal: 

How about any information, other than the names of people involved, 
are included in a post to the list that's made for archival purposes 
just before the original post is deleted?

That way, the salient information would still be accessable to 
*everyone*. 




From heidilist at tandys.org  Fri Nov  7 21:42:41 2003
From: heidilist at tandys.org (heiditandy)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:42:41 -0000
Subject: Question for non-MEGs
In-Reply-To: <bogie4+6nh9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <boh3kh+kigg@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Morgan D." <morgan_d_yyh at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> Anyway, months ago, when we were discussing what would be our 
ruling 
> regime and our linkage to MEG, some of you started muffling the 
> discussion and urging us all to work, not talk. I wrote a long 
> message saying why I thought that was a poor decision, that we 
would 
> only be postpoing the problems and making it a lot worse. 
Regardless, 
> the general reation was "let's work, not talk". 

: shrugs - I'm all for talk if that's what people want but it'll be 
painful, I'm sure. It was on MEG, and it's the reason why I left MEG 
after two and a half years, and it's the reason why a number of the 
former mods of the list quit the entire HPfGU universe and others 
are barely paying attention. 

> 
> So here we are. Again. FAQ made no decisions, and now MEG dictates 
> what FAQ must do. Which is, basically, "work, don't talk". 

Er. Where does it say that? 

Debbie's post said, actually, "FAQ is run as a semi-autonomous list, 
meaning that members of FAQ are responsible for much of the 
governance and certain policy decisions of the list."

How does that translate into "FAQ people, you are forebidden 
internal self-governance"?

 
> Would I like to have policies regarding FAQ seriously discussed 
here? 
> Yes, but honestly, I think it's too late. I think FAQ could now 
> discuss our policies to Doomsday, and it wouldn't make a 
difference. 
> More to the point, I think FAQ policies will *not* be seriously 
> discussed here even if MEG gives us permission to do so. There's 
just 
> too many MEGs and ex-MEGs here, too much resentment creeping in 
the 
> dark, too much we are not allowed to mention because it rubs on 
old 
> scars. 

It's easy for me to say this, as I'm skipping out of the country for 
a week tomorrow and don't have to deal with any aftermath, but I am 
all for pulling off the scabs and letting the blood flow. I have 
gone through tremendous angst this past year, and it actually caused 
me to leave MEG back in the middle of the summer, because I had been 
terribly hurt by some of the things that happened on MEG, and some 
things that were said to me by people who are still on the MEG list. 

But you know what? That actually doesn't mean I think they're doing 
a bad job running the public lists! Isn't that weird?

> Non-MEGs like me would start making suggestions based on 
> logic, on work strategy, on convenience -- while the MEGs and ex-
MEGs 
> would be talking about intrigue, betrayal, coup d'etats, and 
general 
> paranoia. What would be the point?

Well, that's what happens when a bunch of people (namely, those 
who've never been on MEG) have no idea what has happened on that 
list, and perhaps have been given incorrect or at least one-sided 
information. 

Personally, nobody other than Cindy has said anything that they 
think is illogical or unworkable about my comments about list 
scrubbing, and nowhere have I mentioned anything that could possibly 
be construed as intrigue, betrayal, coup d'etats or anything more 
than healthy paranoia that deletion of some emails might cause a 
loss of useful information (see the post I just made). So for all 
your complaints that you'd like policy discussions, you also seem to 
be ignoring my proposal. If you think it's illogical or 
inconvenient, then say so; I can take it, really. 

> 
> I'd love to see FAQ problems discussed FOR REAL. I don't think 
it's 
> possible. 

What sort of problems do you see? I see a lack of FP reports coming 
in, unfortunately, and I think there's been some discussion of that 
here. I see issues involving scrubbing - we've also been disucssing 
that. 

What else do you see as a problem?

> And I don't want to be told by MEG, "well, you can discuss, 
> but we don't have to listen to you, do we?" I feel it would be a 
> waste of saliva and energy. So unless anyone has a proposition 
about 
> how we can discuss all this crap for real, I'm opposed to it. 

Do you have a proposition? I'd be interested in hearing it, myself!

Otherwise, given that MEG has named Abigail to be the liason for 
now, and facilitate communications between FAQ and the MEG list, my 
only suggestion is to discuss things and have her forward/facilitate 
stuff. 

> I'm not 
> in the mood for farcical debates. I'd be insulted to be dragged to 
> one.

Why farcical? 


> Maybe non-MEGs should just leave and let MEG alone to deal with 
their 
> Boggarts in the closet.

I don't want to leave, sorry. I'm working steadily on the legal 
issues FAQ and may actually have an update for the fanfic FAQ thanks 
to an article I'm writing this weekend, although I won't be able to 
do it in full for about 2 weeks, I think. 

Heidi




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  7 22:09:32 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:09:32 -0000
Subject: Reminder - Scrubbing
In-Reply-To: <1068238963.34.78207.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <boh56s+q8qn@eGroups.com>


Could anyone explain what this means, exactly? 

Where did it come from? 

Who posted it? And Why?

And how does Scrubbing make it onto the agenda before the liaison 
question?

-Tom, confused.


> We would like to remind you of this upcoming event.
> 
> Scrubbing 
> 
> Date: Saturday, November 8, 2003 
> Time: 4:00PM - 5:00PM EST (GMT-05:00) 
> 
> Compromise solution to be adopted if no objections lodged




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Nov  7 21:13:34 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:13:34 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Reminder - Scrubbing
In-Reply-To: <1068238963.34.78207.m12@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3a574$06fb55b0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Uh oh.
 
I am *so* sorry, guys!  Before the MEG pronouncements, I entered some
dates on the FAQ group calendar to prod us about upcoming deadlines, in
this case a reminder to wrap up discussion of the FAQ list scrubbing
proposal I had proposed.  Then in all of the activity of late, I forgot
all about it.  
 
Honestly, I meant no disrespect at all and didn't mean to countermand
anyone's authority or comment on administrative issues or anything like
that.  Someone with authority to do so can go into the calendar and
delete the dates I added and the reminders and such, if that is deemed
appropriate.  
 
Again, sorry.
 
Cindy
 
*********************
 
Wesley Clark:  "Nations are more likely to share burdens if they are
also sharing decisions."
 
http://www.clark04.com/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From heidilist at tandys.org  Fri Nov  7 22:12:54 2003
From: heidilist at tandys.org (heidi tandy)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Reminder - Scrubbing
In-Reply-To: <boh56s+q8qn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031107221254.67712.qmail@web60302.mail.yahoo.com>


--- Tom Wall <thomasmwall at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Could anyone explain what this means, exactly? 
> 
> Where did it come from? 
> 
> Who posted it? And Why?

This is what's known as a calendar update. If
someone's calendered something, it is autosent to the
list at the time before the thing happens, per the
input of the person who inputted it. 

And if I recall her post correctly, I think Cindy
calendered it. 
> 
> And how does Scrubbing make it onto the agenda
> before the liaison 
> question?

Dunno, either. 

Heidi



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Nov  8 12:32:40 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 12:32:40 -0000
Subject: Questions for MEG
Message-ID: <boinp8+aqsm@eGroups.com>

Hey, everyone,

With all due respect, I have the following questions for our Interim
Liaison about the MEG policy mandates and clarifications posted on
this list:

1.  How are FAQ members to know when Interim Liaison Abigail is
speaking in her official capacity on behalf of MEG versus on behalf of
herself?  Will she specify this in each message, or will another
protocol be observed?

2.  Does Abigail unilaterally decide which FAQ messages to forward to
MEG?  If so, will Abigail always advise FAQ when this has been done? 
If not, must FAQ members make an official request that a message be
forwarded, and should that be done on FAQ, off-list to Abigail, or to
MEG directly?  Once an issue has been raised on MEG with the Liaison,
will the Liaison provide periodic progress reports?  If these reports
are not forthcoming, may FAQ members inquire of MEG directly via the
owners' account, or must they seek information only from Abigail on FAQ?

3.  When Abigail forwards a FAQ issue to MEG, will she copy the
transmittal message to FAQ?  Will the transmittal message contain
advocacy for Abigail's personal position or contain any sort of 
recommendation or commentary?  Will she also forward or summarize
competing points of view or opine on the weight of FAQ opinion in the
transmittal?  Most importantly, will she copy FAQ on the MEG comments
so that the FAQ members can take the MEG concerns into account in
deciding how to adjust their proposal in the event the proposal is
denied or modified or if MEG has other reservations? 

4.  MEG selected Abigail and declared that she will serve until a
Liaison is elected.  Given that MEG selected Abigail and that MEGs
outnumber non-MEGs on FAQ, will the MEG/FAQ members abstain from the
selection of a Replacement Liaison so that it is not a foregone
conclusion?  Can the Replacement Liaison be a non-MEG who will then be
admitted to MEG?  Can FAQ or MEG change the Replacement Liaison if
they are not happy with his/her performance, and how is this to be
done?  Can FAQ select their nominee in some fashion other than an
election?  Are there any current members of MEG who refuse to function
as Liaison such that the FAQ list members can cross them off the list
of potential nominees?

5.  Presumably, some MEG matters are not the concern of FAQ.  What are
the boundaries between what MEG considers confidential versus those
that are not considered confidential?

6  Who decides who may be a member of FAQ?  What is the maximum number
of members MEG will allow FAQ to be?

7.  Do MEGs have an automatic right to join FAQ upon request?  Must
MEG members write FAQs as a condition of membership, or may they observe?

8.  Have any FAQ policy decision been made by MEG already?  Are there
any current policies of FAQ that MEG wishes to or plans to overturn?

9.  Does MEG have the power to moderate, demand the resignation of, or
oust a FAQ member?  If so, will there be a system of howlers before
this is done?  Will all FAQ members learn of any disciplinary action
taken or howlers sent to any other FAQ members, or is this the
exclusive province of MEG?  Can a FAQ member advise other FAQ members
of disciplinary action taken?  Can a FAQ member complain to MEG (via
the liaison) about rudeness on FAQ or rudeness off-list by a FAQ
member or MEG?

10.  MEG has declared that "members of FAQ are responsible for much of
the governance and certain policy decisions of the list."  Which
portions of governance and which policy decisions are the
responsibility of FAQ and which are the responsibility of MEG?

11.  MEG has declared that "FAQ list must adhere to those policies
that MEG determines apply to all of the lists in the HP4GU family of
lists."  Which policies are those?  Does this extend to matters such
as snipping and combining and attribution as stated in the HBF, or do
you mean something else?  Will MEG provide the non-MEG FAQ members
with a statement of its community-wide or MEG internal policies on
matters such as membership, discipline, governance, pulling rank, and
scrubbing so that FAQ members will know which MEG policies apply to
FAQ?  Are FAQ members allowed to object to or contest the merits of
(that is, weigh in on) these internal MEG policies that apply to FAQ?

12.  Why does every moderator of this list retain the power to invite
a new member, which is presumably something the FAQ (or the MEG list?)
list would decide.

13.  Heidi is not a MEG.  Why was Heidi chosen as the only non-MEG FAQ
to have heightened security privileges?

14.  Once FAQ decides a FAQ policy question, must the MEG members of
FAQ abide by that decision until such time as it is overturned by MEG?

15.  What is the current governing structure of MEG, and what are the
zones of responsibility of each MEG, e.g. ombudself, facilitators,
committee heads, etc.?

16.  Prior to making the unilateral changes to moderator privileges
for security reasons, did any FAQ member make any threat to delete the
FAQ list?  Has any FAQ member ever threatened to delete the FAQ list,
and if so, why is that person still a member of the FAQ list?  Why
were the remaining trustworthy members of the FAQ list who did *not*
threaten to delete the list not advised off-list and in confidence
that these steps would be taken?  

That's all for now.  Thanks, Abigail!

Cindy





From heidilist at tandys.org  Sat Nov  8 14:07:59 2003
From: heidilist at tandys.org (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 06:07:59 -0800
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Questions for MEG
In-Reply-To: <boinp8+aqsm@eGroups.com>
References: <boinp8+aqsm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1068300488.6C5BEC5@s5.dngr.org>


On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 7:35AM -0500, Cindy C. wrote:

> 13.  Heidi is not a MEG.  Why was Heidi chosen as the only non-MEG FAQ
> to have heightened security privileges?

You know, I actually don't know the answer to this. Amanda asked me on 
monday and I said sure. At least, I think I did - I'd been awake for 20 
hours at the time.

I assumed, then and now, that it's because of my longstanding 
relationship with Yahoo which proved so beneficial when the lists were 
deleted back in 2002. However, I may be wrong.

Heidi



From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  8 17:21:44 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 17:21:44 -0000
Subject: Questions for MEG
In-Reply-To: <boinp8+aqsm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <boj8n8+nulb@eGroups.com>

This has been forwarded to MEG, and is being discussed.  You asked many 
good and important questions, Cindy, some of which were already being 
discussed on MEG, and we'll try to formulate a complete answer quickly.

Abigail

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> Hey, everyone,
> 
> With all due respect, I have the following questions for our Interim
> Liaison about the MEG policy mandates and clarifications posted on
> this list:
> 
> 1.  How are FAQ members to know when Interim Liaison Abigail is
> speaking in her official capacity on behalf of MEG versus on behalf of
> herself?  Will she specify this in each message, or will another
> protocol be observed?
> 
> 2.  Does Abigail unilaterally decide which FAQ messages to forward to
> MEG?  If so, will Abigail always advise FAQ when this has been done? 
> If not, must FAQ members make an official request that a message be
> forwarded, and should that be done on FAQ, off-list to Abigail, or to
> MEG directly?  Once an issue has been raised on MEG with the Liaison,
> will the Liaison provide periodic progress reports?  If these reports
> are not forthcoming, may FAQ members inquire of MEG directly via the
> owners' account, or must they seek information only from Abigail on FAQ?
> 
> 3.  When Abigail forwards a FAQ issue to MEG, will she copy the
> transmittal message to FAQ?  Will the transmittal message contain
> advocacy for Abigail's personal position or contain any sort of 
> recommendation or commentary?  Will she also forward or summarize
> competing points of view or opine on the weight of FAQ opinion in the
> transmittal?  Most importantly, will she copy FAQ on the MEG comments
> so that the FAQ members can take the MEG concerns into account in
> deciding how to adjust their proposal in the event the proposal is
> denied or modified or if MEG has other reservations? 
> 
> 4.  MEG selected Abigail and declared that she will serve until a
> Liaison is elected.  Given that MEG selected Abigail and that MEGs
> outnumber non-MEGs on FAQ, will the MEG/FAQ members abstain from the
> selection of a Replacement Liaison so that it is not a foregone
> conclusion?  Can the Replacement Liaison be a non-MEG who will then be
> admitted to MEG?  Can FAQ or MEG change the Replacement Liaison if
> they are not happy with his/her performance, and how is this to be
> done?  Can FAQ select their nominee in some fashion other than an
> election?  Are there any current members of MEG who refuse to function
> as Liaison such that the FAQ list members can cross them off the list
> of potential nominees?
> 
> 5.  Presumably, some MEG matters are not the concern of FAQ.  What are
> the boundaries between what MEG considers confidential versus those
> that are not considered confidential?
> 
> 6  Who decides who may be a member of FAQ?  What is the maximum number
> of members MEG will allow FAQ to be?
> 
> 7.  Do MEGs have an automatic right to join FAQ upon request?  Must
> MEG members write FAQs as a condition of membership, or may they observe?
> 
> 8.  Have any FAQ policy decision been made by MEG already?  Are there
> any current policies of FAQ that MEG wishes to or plans to overturn?
> 
> 9.  Does MEG have the power to moderate, demand the resignation of, or
> oust a FAQ member?  If so, will there be a system of howlers before
> this is done?  Will all FAQ members learn of any disciplinary action
> taken or howlers sent to any other FAQ members, or is this the
> exclusive province of MEG?  Can a FAQ member advise other FAQ members
> of disciplinary action taken?  Can a FAQ member complain to MEG (via
> the liaison) about rudeness on FAQ or rudeness off-list by a FAQ
> member or MEG?
> 
> 10.  MEG has declared that "members of FAQ are responsible for much of
> the governance and certain policy decisions of the list."  Which
> portions of governance and which policy decisions are the
> responsibility of FAQ and which are the responsibility of MEG?
> 
> 11.  MEG has declared that "FAQ list must adhere to those policies
> that MEG determines apply to all of the lists in the HP4GU family of
> lists."  Which policies are those?  Does this extend to matters such
> as snipping and combining and attribution as stated in the HBF, or do
> you mean something else?  Will MEG provide the non-MEG FAQ members
> with a statement of its community-wide or MEG internal policies on
> matters such as membership, discipline, governance, pulling rank, and
> scrubbing so that FAQ members will know which MEG policies apply to
> FAQ?  Are FAQ members allowed to object to or contest the merits of
> (that is, weigh in on) these internal MEG policies that apply to FAQ?
> 
> 12.  Why does every moderator of this list retain the power to invite
> a new member, which is presumably something the FAQ (or the MEG list?)
> list would decide.
> 
> 13.  Heidi is not a MEG.  Why was Heidi chosen as the only non-MEG FAQ
> to have heightened security privileges?
> 
> 14.  Once FAQ decides a FAQ policy question, must the MEG members of
> FAQ abide by that decision until such time as it is overturned by MEG?
> 
> 15.  What is the current governing structure of MEG, and what are the
> zones of responsibility of each MEG, e.g. ombudself, facilitators,
> committee heads, etc.?
> 
> 16.  Prior to making the unilateral changes to moderator privileges
> for security reasons, did any FAQ member make any threat to delete the
> FAQ list?  Has any FAQ member ever threatened to delete the FAQ list,
> and if so, why is that person still a member of the FAQ list?  Why
> were the remaining trustworthy members of the FAQ list who did *not*
> threaten to delete the list not advised off-list and in confidence
> that these steps would be taken?  
> 
> That's all for now.  Thanks, Abigail!
> 
> Cindy




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  9 09:44:51 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 09:44:51 -0000
Subject: More questions for MEG
Message-ID: <bol2aj+g47f@eGroups.com>

Hey all ? 

I ? like Cindy ? also have a list of questions for MEG, and they're 
directly related to the two MEG-related e-mails that were sent on 
Wednesday morning. And for the most part, our question lists don't 
even overlap? How great is that? [Unlike the others in this e-mail, 
that question was rhetorical, by the way.] ;-)


Debbie:
The FAQ group is somewhat different from the public groups in that 
its function is to review posts to the main list and write essays 
(with links) about them.

- According to MEG, how long is a member of FAQ allowed to remain 
idle in group discussions and still maintain membership on the FAQ 
list?

- In which cases are exceptions made?

- By whom ? MEG or FAQ - are exceptions decided?

- Can exceptions be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?

- According to MEG, how long is a member of FAQ allowed to not 
participate in the production of FP's and still maintain membership 
on the FAQ list?

- In which cases are exceptions made?

- By whom ? MEG or FAQ - are exceptions decided?

- Can exceptions be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?


Debbie:
FAQ is run as a semi-autonomous list, meaning that members of FAQ are
responsible for much of the governance and certain policy decisions
of the list.

Tom:
- For which FAQ list governance issues are FAQ responsible?

- For which FAQ list governance issues are MEG responsible?

- (Re: above) Please list these.

- In which cases does MEG retain the right to override FAQ decisions?

- Can overrides be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?

- For which FAQ list policy decisions are FAQ responsible?

- For which FAQ list policy decisions are MEG responsible?

- (Re: above) Please list these.

- In which cases does MEG retain the right to override FAQ policies?

- How are overrides decided?

- Can overrides be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?


Debbie:
This means that FAQ must be in open communication with MEG, and that 
the FAQ list must adhere to those policies that MEG determines apply 
to all of the lists in the HP4GU family of lists.

Tom:
- What policies has MEG determined apply to all of the HPfGU lists?

- Please provide a list of these policies.

- Please provide the policies themselves.

- If the policies cannot be provided, then why not?


Debbie:
In order to ensure that open, two-way communication is mantained
between FAQ and MEG, we would like to have a liaison who is a member 
of both groups, someone who will be able to make sure questions and 
comments that affect both groups are properly addressed.

Tom:
Point of clarification: on the internet, "open, two-way 
communication," i.e `dialogue' between groups of people, consists of 
mailing lists, message boards, or chat rooms.

Contrariwise, "liaisons" are used when one does *not* wish to make 
use of "open, two-way communication," and when one does not wish to 
make use of `dialogue.' 

I.e. - what we have now neither constitutes "open, two-way 
communication," nor does it constitute 'dialogue.'


Debbie:
We intend for this person to be agreed upon by members of both 
groups, and so will take nominations for a liaison.

Tom:
- According to what extent is MEG's "intent" subject to change?

- According to what process is this agreement going to take place?

- How is this process to be determined?

- Does MEG possess the authority to override FAQ's decisions 
regarding the liaison?

- Can FAQ contest any override? If so, how? If not, why not?

- How are nominations to be proposed, and to whom?

- How ? and where - is a complete list of nominees going to be made 
available for all members of both groups to consider?

- By whom ? and how ? will the final decision be made?

- Is the decision final?

- If decided by MEG, can the decision be contested? If so, how? If 
not, why not?

- How long will the liaison serve?

- In the eventual event that a liaison is to be replaced, what will 
the procedure be at that time?

- When will the final decision regarding the liaison be made?

- Can this timeline be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?


Debbie:
Official comments by MEG will come only from the liaison, and he or 
she will be responsible for relaying questions or requests from FAQ 
to MEG, as well as relaying MEG's response.

Tom:
If I understand this correctly, then MEG statements will now come 
*only* through the liaison. For the time-being, this liaison is 
Abigail. 

So MEG statements, for the time-being, will come only from Abigail.

In other words, overlap members of MEG who retain membership on FAQ ?
 i.e those who are members of both groups, with the sole exception 
being the liaison (who is temporarily Abigail) ? no longer retain 
the right to:

a) refer to MEG itself on the FAQ list.
b) refer to MEG discussions on the FAQ list.
c) refer to MEG policy on the FAQ list.

- If this summary is incorrect, please explain how.


In addition to this summation of policy, I have the following 
questions regarding it:

- Who authorized Amanda's post to FAQ regarding MEG-policy?

- Is Amanda's post to FAQ (following Debbie's, and prefixed "ADMIN") 
an accurate expression of MEG policy?

- Is Amanda's post in violation of MEG policy as it has been 
presented thus far by MEG?

- If it is in violation, then can FAQ-members expect a statement of 
contrition from MEG for this violation? If not, why not?

- If Amanda's post is *not* considered to be in direct violation of 
MEG policy as presented thus far, please explain how it is not in 
violation.

- If Amanda's post *was* a statement of MEG policy, and MEG, in 
fact, endorses it, then why did MEG see fit to violate its own 
policy two hours after the policy was first made evident to the 
members of FAQ?

- Please outline the steps that are being taken to avoid a repeat of 
the violations of MEG's policy that took place on Wednesday morning.

- What routes of appeal exist for MEG violations of MEG policy? 

- If not route of appeals exists, please explain why.


Debbie:
As such, this is not a forum for discussion of MEG issues, and 
issues of that type raised here will not be discussed by MEG.

Tom:
If I am accurate in understanding MEG's policy statement, then 
actually:
 
- Questions of MEG policy raised on FAQ by non-MEG members, in fact  
*will* be discussed by MEG, correct? They will be discussed by MEG 
via the liaison? If I am inaccurate, please explain how.


I am also confused about the *role* of the liaison between the two 
groups, and have several attendant questions that do not overlap 
Cindy's list.

- What questions can be posted to the FAQ list?

- What ? if any - questions are to be sent directly to the liaison?

- What questions are to be sent to HFfGU?owner?

- What, if any, are the distinctions and guidelines that FAQ members 
are to observe when deciding to whom questions should be sent?


Given these questions regarding the MEG policy that Debbie posted to 
FAQ on Wednesday morning regarding FAQ, please revise said policy 
and have the liaison repost it to the FAQ list. If MEG declines to 
do this, please explain why.


- - - 

Now, the following questions are in regards to Amanda's post to the 
FAQ list on Wednesday morning.


Amanda:
The then-admin team leaped into action; and with great difficulty,
managed to get the files restored; and set up security measures to
avoid this type of occurrence in future. <snip>

Tom:
- Define `security measures.'

- List the `security measures.' If this cannot be done, then why?


Amanda:
So, because of these security concerns, night before last, three MEGs
[Amanda, Dicey, and Kelley] made an executive decision and made the
following changes:

Tom:
- Define `executive decision' in the context of the following 
questions:

- In which cases are `executive decisions' made?

- By whom may `executive decisions' be made?

- To what degree are `executive decisions' decided upon collectively 
by the members of MEG?

- To what degree are `executive decisions' supported by MEG?

- To what degree are `executive decisions' made by members of MEG 
binding over the members of MEG?

- To what degree are `executive decisions' made by members of MEG 
binding over the members of FAQ?

- Can `executive decisions' be contested or appealed? If so, how? If 
not, why not?


I am also confused concerning Kelley's role in the `executive 
decision' that was made by Amanda, Debbie (who is not Dicey, or 
Sheryll), and Kelley. 

Kelley is not a member of FAQ, and her candidacy on FAQ has been a 
subject of discussion as of late. Therefore, I am not clear 
regarding the extent to which non-FAQ members of MEG may 
unilaterally (as in the case of the decision being discussed) exert 
control and/or influence over FAQ.

- To what degree is a non-member of FAQ, who is a member of MEG,  
entitled to make decisions regarding FAQ?

- To what degree are decisions made by a non-FAQ member that is a 
member of MEG binding on the members of FAQ?

- May decisions made by a non-FAQ member of MEG be contested? If so, 
how? If not, why not?


Amanda:
We stress: this was an interim security measure and has not changed
anyone's moderator status. No further changes will be made without
FAQ's input.

- Define `interim,' as in, 'how long?'

- Define `input,' as in, 'how much?'

- Discuss briefly in the context of the following statement: "FAQ 
has made decision x." To what degree is MEG allowed to overturn 
FAQ's decision x? To what degree is FAQ allowed to appeal MEG's 
decision. If FAQ is not allowed to appeal, then why not?


Amanda:
We further stress: as an interim measure, it can and should be
revisited.

Tom:
- Does `we' refer to Amanda, Debbie, and Kelley? If the answer to 
this is no, then:

- Does `we' refer to the whole of MEG? If the answer to this is no, 
then:

- To whom does `we' refer?

- Am I correct in interpreting Amanda's above statement to 
mean `will be revisited?' [By this I mean that if it is not 
revisited, it will not be `interim' but `permanent.' Is this a 
correct interpretation of Amanda's statement? If not, then how is it 
incorrect, and what is the statement that should have been made?


Amanda:
FAQ is an HP4GU list and MEG will be a part of the decision as to 
who has moderator authority and/or powers on FAQ, but the FAQ 
members and FAQ input are a vital factor as well.

Tom:
- Specifically define MEG's role as being `part of the decision.'

- Specifically define FAQ's role in the decision.

- To what degree does MEG retain the right to overturn FAQ decisions 
regarding this particular sphere of FAQ operations?

- Can MEG overturns of FAQ decisions be contested? If so, how? If 
not, why not?


Amanda:
When a non-interim MEG liaison has been identified, and an optimal 
number of moderators determined, that liaison will work with FAQ to 
organize a moderator selection process.

Tom:
- Define `optimal number of moderators.'

- Elaborate in the following context: `Optimal number of moderators' 
as determined by whom?


Please revise and repost MEG's policy as articulated by Amanda in 
light of these questions. If MEG declines to do this, then please 
explain why.


- - -

I have asked these specific questions because I do not fully 
understand MEG's stated policy, and desire enlightenment in this 
regard for myself and my non-MEG FAQ peers.

Please do not condense any of my questions. Please do not skip any 
of my questions. Please answer each question specifically.


Questions that MEG is currently unable or unwilling to answer may be 
saved until a later time.

Thanks in advance,
Tom





From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  9 11:29:59 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 11:29:59 -0000
Subject: More questions for MEG
In-Reply-To: <bol2aj+g47f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bol8fn+cu1v@eGroups.com>

Please address all of my previously stated questions in light of the 
following question as well. If the following question is too 
confusing for the members of MEG, I will gladly rephrase all of my 
previously stated questions in order to to account for this.

Given that over half of FAQ's members are members of MEG, what steps 
is MEG taking to ensure that policy decisions made by FAQ fairly 
reflect the opinions of non-MEG members of FAQ?

In other words, since MEG holds a majority on FAQ, non-MEG members 
are literally in no position to decide anything that contradicts 
MEG, since an obvious voting block exists. 

Discuss all of my previous questions in the context of this obvious 
inequality of voting power, because quite literally, each non-MEG 
FAQ member's vote counts for about 2/3 the vote of an MEG member.

Just like American slavery's assumptions based on population value.

Again, if this distinction is not clear, please let me know and I 
will rewrite my questions to take it into account.

Thanks again,
-Tom




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  9 13:53:45 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 13:53:45 -0000
Subject: More questions for MEG
In-Reply-To: <bol8fn+cu1v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bolgt9+2gh7@eGroups.com>

Both of Tom's posts have been forwarded to MEG. where they will be 
discussed.  I'm sure you can appreciate that between Tom and Cindy, 
providing coherent answers might be a little time-consuming, and I 
hope that we can rely on your patience.

Abigail

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Tom Wall" <thomasmwall at y...> wrote:
> Please address all of my previously stated questions in light of the 
> following question as well. If the following question is too 
> confusing for the members of MEG, I will gladly rephrase all of my 
> previously stated questions in order to to account for this.
> 
> Given that over half of FAQ's members are members of MEG, what steps 
> is MEG taking to ensure that policy decisions made by FAQ fairly 
> reflect the opinions of non-MEG members of FAQ?
> 
> In other words, since MEG holds a majority on FAQ, non-MEG members 
> are literally in no position to decide anything that contradicts 
> MEG, since an obvious voting block exists. 
> 
> Discuss all of my previous questions in the context of this obvious 
> inequality of voting power, because quite literally, each non-MEG 
> FAQ member's vote counts for about 2/3 the vote of an MEG member.
> 
> Just like American slavery's assumptions based on population value.
> 
> Again, if this distinction is not clear, please let me know and I 
> will rewrite my questions to take it into account.
> 
> Thanks again,
> -Tom




From editor at texas.net  Sun Nov  9 21:19:11 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 21:19:11 -0000
Subject: More questions for MEG
In-Reply-To: <bol8fn+cu1v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bomb0g+tks2@eGroups.com>

I am speaking strictly in my personal capacity. This is just Amanda. 
I am not a faceless MEG entity at the moment. I have taken off my 
Independent-Thought Neutralizer (TM) and possess the ability to 
express opinions and thoughts of my own. The following post reflects 
*only* these. I am posting here as a FAQ member only. References to 
MEG are incidental and do not reflect any policy or stance thereunto 
appertaining. Your mileage may vary. Contents may settle in shipping.

I apologize to any and all, but this post is about a basic assumption 
Tom is making, rather than any specific question, and I am answering 
as a longtime FAQ member and (clearly) a political neophyte. 

Tom:
> Given that over half of FAQ's members are members of MEG, what 
steps 
> is MEG taking to ensure that policy decisions made by FAQ fairly 
> reflect the opinions of non-MEG members of FAQ?
> 
> In other words, since MEG holds a majority on FAQ, non-MEG members 
> are literally in no position to decide anything that contradicts 
> MEG, since an obvious voting block exists. 

I wouldn't think any "weighting" or other measures are necessary, 
personally. By way of example--I am a Republican who can, does, and 
has voted for Democratic, Independent, or other non-Republican 
candidates. Like most people I know, I look at issues and stances, 
instead of the little (R) or (D) or whatever. I find the option "vote 
all Republican" or whatever it says, laughable. Republicans do not 
think and move as one. Most groups don't. Groups are a bunch of 
*individuals.* Individuals think, decide, weigh options, as 
individuals.

What I have seen in action on FAQ in the past, has been that FAQ 
members are FAQ members and discuss issues from that perspective. 
This political MEG/nonMEG distinction that you are considering a 
foregone conclusion, is not something that I, at least, had ever 
perceived as existing here, prior to all this governance stuff. It 
may have now been so discussed by this point that it has come into 
existence--but I think it is far more the product of the discussion, 
than vice versa. Wag the Dog.

The assumption that this list had, has, or will have some sort 
of "party system" happening, that there are "voting blocks" along 
MEG/nonMEG lines, is not one that I personally consider valid. I 
didn't hand over my identity or ability to think for myself when I 
became a MEG. It also sounds like your basic assumption lumps the 
nonMEG FAQ members into a Unit that groupthinks rather than 
considering issues as individuals. This does justice to none of us.

There are clearly some things that need to be worked out between the 
two groups, but this political-party, majority/minority, subgroup 
identity approach is not something I had ever perceived, nor do I 
believe fostering it helps anything. I honestly can not tell you who 
the MEGs on this list are. I could tell you a few, but naming who is 
and who isn't? Off the top of my head? No way. Not only do I not have 
time to keep track of that sort of detail, it's just not the way I 
think.

For me to be exercising the kind of preselective group-based decision-
making you are describing, I would have to print out a list of MEG 
FAQ members and one of nonMEG FAQ members and stick it on my 
computer, as a quick-reference card to remind me who was in 
which "camp," which I presumably would consult before agreeing or 
disagreeing with an expressed stance. I decline to do this. I have no 
time for this. Politics isn't what this list--or any of the HP4GU 
lists--were ever about.

Again, this was just Amanda. Not MEG!Amanda or Evil!Amanda or 
Dominatrix!Amanda or any other [adjective]Amanda. Just Amanda 
personally.

~Amanda




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 10 03:04:56 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 03:04:56 -0000
Subject: More questions for MEG
In-Reply-To: <bomb0g+tks2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bomv8o+2v98@eGroups.com>

Amanda wrote:
I wouldn't think any "weighting" or other measures are necessary,
personally.

Tom:
Naturally you "personally" wouldn't. 

For precisely the same reasons that Autonomy "personally" baffles 
you. 

Because you are *in* the majority, Amanda. For such a smart lady, 
I'm amazed that you can overlook the obvious discrepancy between the 
high-minded "fairness" that MEG believes it exhibits, and the 
subsequent ? and obviously completely contradictory - maneuvers that 
have been made earlier this year, and again recently in MEG's 
successful seizing of authority on FAQ.

However, I think that someday, when you are *not* in the majority, 
then I'd be more inclined to accept your perspective on this matter 
as possibly objective. As it stands now, you just proved my point in 
your attempt to stifle the very *discussion* as to whether or not we 
could expect the overlap members to be fair. 

You challenged the very *validity* of the question. Is any more 
proof needed?
 
The people who seized power in April ? the very same people who have 
power now ? are *hardly* in a position to express anything 
like "fairness" to those of us who have no leg to stand on when it 
comes to decision making. And they're hardly in a position to expect 
the non-MEG members to believe that fairness is MEG's goal, when 
since earlier this year, MEG has acted only for its own benefit. In 
fact, a quite compelling case could be ? and is being ? written to 
explain precisely how MEG's selfish-motivations for self-government 
were the direct cause of the sloppy handling of OoP.

In short, MEG's selfish motivations for self-government were acted 
upon at the *direct* expense of the greater HPfGU community. 

Who benefited from your rebellion earlier this year? *You* did. Not 
HPfGU. In fact, there are zero indications to suggest that the 
present regime is any better than the previous one, and several 
indications to suggest that things are quite a bit worse.
 
So, since for the time-being over half of the members of FAQ are 
currently the very same ones attempting to answer the questions that 
Cindy and I have posed ? except they're doing it on a separate list, 
a list on which the rest of us are not welcome - and since for the 
time being the rest of the members of FAQ are completely in the dark 
regarding the majority's decision-making process, you'll have to 
afford me the merest shred of slack when I display a perfectly 
acceptable ? and even healthy, given MEG's recent consolidation of 
authority on FAQ to *only* MEG members (and Heidi) - skepticism 
regarding the *assumed* equity that MEG members quite likely do 
perceive in this policy making process.

Because quite normally people who are motivated by power ? even 
those who are blatantly so - don't see themselves as such.

For instance, Professor Umbridge doesn't *see* herself as a power-
monger. She thinks ? in fact, quite ardently asserts - that what 
she's doing is best for both Hogwarts and the Ministry. I have no 
doubt in my mind that she's very serious. In fact, she seems to 
quite emphatically believe that what she's doing is the *right* - 
indeed, the *rightest* - thing to do.

Yet obviously, what she's doing is wrong, and the delicious and 
complicated irony is that neither she, nor Fudge, can see that what 
they're doing is hurting everyone. They can't see it because they're 
the ones making the decisions, and they believe that they're 
properly motivated.

I thought you would've figured that out by now.


Amanda:
This political MEG/nonMEG distinction that you are considering a
foregone conclusion, is not something that I, at least, had ever
perceived as existing here, prior to all this governance stuff.

Tom:
Well, perhaps that's because until now, no overlap FAQ/MEG members 
had ever so blatantly instituted a clampdown on the non-MEG members 
on FAQ.

And given the clampdown that *you* "personally" instituted via 
your `executive decision' (the definition of which is still being 
figured out by over half of our membership on a separate list to 
which we're not invited, in a conversation which we're not allowed 
to participate in until *after* the majority has made up its mind), 
you'll have to forgive my questioning of the overlap members' 
motivations.

Again, given that you've been around here for so much longer than I 
have ? and that you're also older than me and might be counted upon 
to demonstrate a greater understanding of human corruption and its 
varying attendant complexities - I figured you would have picked up 
on this a lot sooner.


Amanda:
The assumption that this list had, has, or will have some sort
of "party system" happening, that there are "voting blocks" along
MEG/nonMEG lines, is not one that I personally consider valid. I
didn't hand over my identity or ability to think for myself when I
became a MEG.

Tom:
So, let's stop for a moment.

What you're basically expecting me ? and the other non-MEG members - 
to accept here is that after the majority of FAQ members make their 
policy decisions over on MEG, and then report back to FAQ to Let Us 
Know How It's Going To Be, that these *very* same people will then 
be able to look at their decisions with a degree of objectivity. 

You're expecting us non-MEG members to believe that you'll make 
decisions over on MEG, and then come back to FAQ and "fairly" 
discuss - and even be willing to overturn ? your own decisions.

Forgive me if I exhibit disbelief.

This assertion is not historically supported by the veteran members 
of MEG's ? I am discounting the latest round of additions, because 
IMHO they are not yet corrupted by the events that occurred earlier 
in 2003 - past or present actions. 

And therefore, I find it incredibly unlikely that an ability to 
objectively review their own actions will suddenly emerge in MEG's 
future perspective.


Amanda:
There are clearly some things that need to be worked out between the
two groups, but this political-party, majority/minority, subgroup
identity approach is not something I had ever perceived, nor do I
believe fostering it helps anything.

Tom:
You quite clearly don't perceive it as a problem because you're *in* 
the majority.

And you likely don't think that fostering it is a good idea because 
it will mean that the majority's actions can be called into question 
by non-majority members.

Amanda, don't you see that the mere fact that you're objecting to 
the distinction I have drawn is enough to make my point obvious to 
anyone who is not currently in the majority group? 

It amazes me that you can't see that your objections to the Very 
Question Itself constitute ? in effect ? the best smoking gun that 
could exist. They are more effective for proving my point than 
anything I could construe argumentatively.

Thanks for weighing in,
Tom





From editor at texas.net  Mon Nov 10 03:55:37 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:55:37 -0600
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: More questions for MEG
References: <bomv8o+2v98@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000801c3a73e$812c9760$dc59aacf@texas.net>

Apologies again to FAQ. I realize this dialogue may be tiring many of you. I
will "retire from the field" and not respond further, because it seems that
Tom and I can only agree to disagree--but I was unwilling to let my silence
be consent to the implications of corruption. Or similarities with Dolores
Umbridge. Ugh.

Tom:
As it stands now, you just proved my point in
your attempt to stifle the very *discussion* as to whether or not we
could expect the overlap members to be fair.

Amanda:
? Is any comment or observation I make, going to be taken as an attempt to
stifle something? What did I attempt to stifle now? Why is me stating my
perspective, Amanda Stifles Again?

Tom:
The people who seized power in April - the very same people who have
power now - are *hardly* in a position to express anything
like "fairness" to those of us who have no leg to stand on when it
comes to decision making.

Amanda:
Seized power? On FAQ? Listen, I'm really sorry the relationship between MEG
and FAQ wasn't clarified earlier, really, but there wasn't any seizing, in
my understanding. Just because things have been miscommunicated and
misunderstood, doesn't mean that the miscommunications or misunderstandings
were the facts of the matter.

Tom:
Who benefited from your rebellion earlier this year? *You* did. Not
HPfGU.

Amanda:
*sigh* Which rebellion are we talking about? There hasn't been one on FAQ,
that I'm aware of, and I thought we were talking about FAQ.

Tom:
 In fact, there are zero indications to suggest that the
present regime is any better than the previous one, and several
indications to suggest that things are quite a bit worse.

Amanda:
Tom. Why do you keep using such charged language? "Regime"? "Rebellion"?
"Seizing power"? Why did you *join* FAQ? Was it to possess and wield power,
or was it to work with other people who enjoyed HP, in cataloguing and
compiling FP essays? How is any of this relevant to the work we all joined
to do? What is at issue, here?

I have been in the minority on many occasions in the past. Demonizing a
majority, painting them all with one brush, is not the way to deal with a
majority. You deal with a majority one individual at a time. Because
commonalities are more common than differences, in my experience.

I keep coming back to FAQ work not to "stifle" anything, but because, to the
best of my knowledge, *that* was what all of us are here for. Not power
struggles or positioning or politics.

Tom:
given MEG's recent consolidation of
authority on FAQ to *only* MEG members (and Heidi) - skepticism
regarding the *assumed* equity that MEG members quite likely do
perceive in this policy making process.

Amanda:
We consolidated moderator abilities. Authorities have yet to be worked out.
There is a significant difference. Moderator abilities are settings.
Authority is quite different and does not stem from which boxes are checked
under "moderator abilities."

There is a certain amount of trust that must exist in a group of people
working together. If every single word any FAQ member who happens to be a
MEG says to you is going to be challenged and disbelieved, there's no point
in talking. I was attempting to present how I really see things, in answer
to a viewpoint I do not myself share. Extend to me, at least, the decency to
entertain the belief that I may be an honest human being who simply
disagrees.

Tom:
This assertion is not historically supported by the veteran members
of MEG's - I am discounting the latest round of additions, because
IMHO they are not yet corrupted by the events that occurred earlier
in 2003 - past or present actions.

Amanda:
*blinks* "Corrupted by events"? What occurred in 2003 that so corrupted us?
Again, I suspect this is ranging beyond FAQ. Since you have so many times
stated that you are not privy to MEG interactions, how are you so certain
that we have been, or are, corrupt? You weren't there. And on FAQ, an
straightforward reading of everything posted does not reveal corruption.
Maybe what we said was what we meant? Maybe all the sinister intent found
between the lines is seeing what you want to see?

Tom:
Amanda, don't you see that the mere fact that you're objecting to
the distinction I have drawn is enough to make my point obvious to
anyone who is not currently in the majority group?

Amanda:
Well, I can see that *you* think this polarization exists. I can see it's a
valid viewpoint and one way to interpret things. But I won't accept your
speaking for anyone but yourself; the same way that I was speaking only for
myself in presenting my viewpoint. And we clearly disagree. But that's as
far as I'm willing to go; I don't personally extend this dichotomy to the
rest of the list, along MEG/nonMEG lines. Probably every single member of
FAQ has a different take on things. Decisions should be made based on all
"takes," not just yours or mine.

Thank you for the dialogue.

~Amanda







From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov 10 04:06:21 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 04:06:21 -0000
Subject: More questions for MEG
In-Reply-To: <bomb0g+tks2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bon2rt+h5p2@eGroups.com>

Hi!

Amanda wrote:

> I am speaking strictly in my personal capacity. This is just Amanda. 
> I am not a faceless MEG entity at the moment. 



Forgive me, but I really think that Amanda's post is quite improper
and way out of line under the new regime around here.  Debbie's Prime
Directive unilaterally decided that there will be a Liaison and
decided it will be Abigail.  Then Debbie wrote, "As such, this is not
a forum for discussion of MEG issues, and issues of that type raised
here will not be discussed by MEG."

So, no, I don't think it is proper for MEG members to discuss MEG
matters here at all *ever,* if I understand the Prime Directive
properly.  

Abigail, did I get that right?  If I did, would Abigail let the FAQ
members know what will be done about Amanda's *second* violation 
of the Prime Directive (the first being her ADMIN about the emergency
security precautions to make sure the FAQ members wouldn't delete
their own list)?

This seems to be a pretty important thing to nail down now that the
Prime Directive has established a pecking order here on the FAQ list.
 IMHO, Amanda can no sooner claim to speak as a non-MEG than I can
claim to speak as a MEG.  

And frankly, we're going to get our feet *hopelessly* tangled up under
us if MEGs keep whipping their MEG hats on and off and saying this or
that.  That compelling need for clarity, I understood, was the reason
we have Abigail to serve all of us FAQ-only members.

Cindy -- also requesting that Abigail answer each of her questions
individually






From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 10 04:19:24 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 04:19:24 -0000
Subject: More questions for MEG
In-Reply-To: <000801c3a73e$812c9760$dc59aacf@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bon3kc+6cti@eGroups.com>

Tom, previously:
Who benefited from your rebellion earlier this year? *You* did. Not
HPfGU.

Amanda:
*sigh* Which rebellion are we talking about? There hasn't been one 
on FAQ, that I'm aware of, and I thought we were talking about FAQ.

Tom, now:
Oh, you mean there's more than one? I was referring to the one in 
which MEG decided that *it* was a better system of administration 
than the old Moderators. And I contested that, in light of recent 
events around here. Really, it's perfectly clear. I don't see how my 
meaning could have been misinterpreted. And since MEG hasn't 
answered my questions yet, I'm more than allowed under the present 
rules to bring this up. MEG's actions in earlier 2003 are directly 
related, in a causal sense, to what's going on now.


Amanda:
Tom. Why do you keep using such charged 
language? "Regime"? "Rebellion"? "Seizing power"? Why did you *join* 
FAQ? Was it to possess and wield power, or was it to work with other 
people who enjoyed HP, in cataloguing and compiling FP essays? How 
is any of this relevant to the work we all joined to do? What is at 
issue, here?

Tom:
Alright then. I've been holding off on this, you know. Exhibiting 
restraint. But you want to talk about the work we signed up to do?

Amanda - What FAQ's have you written? None that are posted on the 
webpage. None that are mentioned in the Database.

What FAQ's are *you* currently working on? 

Why did *you* sign up for FAQ? By the looks of it, not to work on 
FP's. Unless you've taken on a project in total secrecy and decided 
not to inform anyone about it. Please. Do enlighten the ignorant.

For the record, *I'm* working on the Death Eater FAQ with 
Derannimer. *I* have culled almost two-hundred related posts from 
the archives. *I* have a rough draft of the Dark Mark section 
already done, and I have kept the list updated on my progress 
regarding the FAQ that *I'm* working on.

Where are *your* updates?  What have *you* done? What are *you* 
doing, aside from arguing with me?


Amanda:
Thank you for the dialogue.

Tom:
No problem.

-Tom





From editor at texas.net  Mon Nov 10 04:33:39 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:33:39 -0600
Subject: FAQ roles, and Dark Mark
References: <bon3kc+6cti@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002a01c3a743$d1157e40$dc59aacf@texas.net>

Tom:

> Amanda - What FAQ's have you written? None that are posted on the
> webpage. None that are mentioned in the Database.
>
> What FAQ's are *you* currently working on?
>
> Why did *you* sign up for FAQ? By the looks of it, not to work on
> FP's. Unless you've taken on a project in total secrecy and decided
> not to inform anyone about it. Please. Do enlighten the ignorant.

Since you asked. I signed on because I am an editor. I help proof
draft-finals, and check links. There hasn't been much call for this
particular skill set lately; nobody has posted a draft-final text for
proofing or link-checking in rather a long time. I stand ready when this
does occur. Not everyone on this list is here to write; there are FAQ
production support roles.

Tom:
> For the record, *I'm* working on the Death Eater FAQ with
> Derannimer. *I* have culled almost two-hundred related posts from
> the archives. *I* have a rough draft of the Dark Mark section
> already done, and I have kept the list updated on my progress
> regarding the FAQ that *I'm* working on.

Way cool! I'm looking forward to the Dark Mark stuff; I'd given a list of
posts to Porphyria back when she was doing Snape, that discussed Dark Mark
stuff, but she (correctly, I think) decided that it wasn't Snape-specific
enough to include with that one, and set the list aside to help support a
later FAQ. I wasn't sure if there was, overall, enough stuff for Dark Mark
by itself, or if it would be rolled into a larger one.

Would be happy to help proof or link-check when you put it up.

~Amanda






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov 10 04:46:36 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 04:46:36 -0000
Subject: "Work, Don't Talk! (WAS Questions for MEG )
In-Reply-To: <boh3kh+kigg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bon57c+bjjt@eGroups.com>

Howdy!

Heidi asked a darn good question the other day, so I thought I'd go
ahead and answer it based on some information I have that Heidi doesn't.

Morgan wrote:

> > So here we are. Again. FAQ made no decisions, and now MEG dictates 
> > what FAQ must do. Which is, basically, "work, don't talk". 

Heidi:

 
> Er. Where does it say that? 


I think Morgan's take on it was just about right.  Below you'll find a
hostile message I received from MEG about my participation on the FAQ
team.  I think you'll find the theme to be "Work, Don't Talk."    

I hesitated to post my very own (and very first) *howler* in front of
my friends and colleagues -- sheez, how *embarrassing!*  --  but if
the FAQ-only members are truly to know where they stand in the eyes of
MEG, then it is probably best that we be operating from the same base
of information.  

Now, I happen to think my FAQ messages of late concerning membership
and administrative issues were quite professional and reasonable,
focusing on finding fair solutions and compromises.  I soldiered on
without complaint in the face of cutting remarks and heckling, fully
aware that some MEGs here are so bitter that they seemed to be
objecting to my remarks simply because, well, they were *my* remarks.
 But I darn sure wasn't talking to myself in these FAQ posts -- lots
of *MEG* members replied to discuss the merits of these administrative
issues and advocate their own positions -- and we came thiiiiiiis
close to resolving some of them once and for all.  

What is most scary about this MEG howler, though, is that it does seem
to be an end run by our MEG members.  For instance, one MEG believes
we shouldn't discuss governance and has said this list is "for writing
FAQs."  This, to me, is nonsensical -- if there were not
administrative issues that must be resolved on FAQ, then there would
have been no reason for MEG to declare its Infinite Authority over FAQ
administration.  The fact that FAQers are trying to resolve our
administrative issues shows there is interest in doing so and a need
to do so.  After all, MEG spent *months* discussing its own internal
administrative issues; how can FAQ be expected to get anywhere if we
are forbidden to discuss our administration?

Nevertheless, as these few MEG members weren't able to convince the
FAQers that they shouldn't discuss FAQ policy and administration, then
MEG resorted to off-list threats against a FAQ member who was trying
to move things along.  It's a shame, really.  It suggests that if our
MEG/FAQ members can't make a persuasive case for their "Let's ignore
administration" position, they will resort to brute force.

What is also scary is that the MEG howler does not address what I
think is the real problem on this list that is keeping folks from
getting things done -- *rudeness.*  You know, plain old fashioned
personal attacks and snide remarks that have taken a lively and fun
list and made it a sewer, pretty much.  Twice now Tom has asked that
the rudeness stop, and some MEGs (and *only* the MEGs IMHO) persist
anyway, with the kind of rudeness that would *never* be tolerated on
our public lists.  

So, Heidi, I have some thoughts about your scrubbing proposal that
would probably make both of us happy.  But I don't think it wise for
me to explain further, lest I wind up being expelled from this group.
 Sorry.  

Anyway, here's the howler.  Enjoy!


****************

Dear Cindy --

I am writing on behalf of the admin team to ask you to stop flooding
the FAQ list with administrative messages. In the last five days you
have posted at least 40 messages to the FAQ list, only a small
fraction of which have had any relationship to the writing of FAQs.

You have stated that you would no longer be willing to lead the FAQ
list. Yet, you continue to post as if you are responsible for the
governance of the list. You dominate the FAQ list with lengthy,
detailed, and ever-changing position statements on FAQ governance
issues. Further, these messages frequently contain references to your
personal disagreements with MEG.

Your excessive posting on FAQ and MEG governance issues has, we
understand, led many FAQ members to lose interest in visiting the FAQ
list or writing FAQs. Even for those who are willing to read the list,
posts relating to the writing of FPs are lost in the flood of
ADMIN/MEMB messages. Therefore, your actions threaten the continued
viability of the FP project.

As you know from your own experience as a mod, the FAQ list has always
been an integral part of HPFGU, and it is part of our responsibility
as the HPFGU admin team to ensure that the FP project is moving
forward. That depends in large part on the interest and goodwill of
the FP team members. While some FAQ list members are able to tune out
your posts, it is clear that many others cannot. Your actions have
brought down the morale of the entire FAQ team.

We hope and believe that you really have the best interests of HPFGU
at heart and will reevaluate your actions in that light. We would like
to see you apply the bulk of your creative energies to writing FPs
rather than to addressing administrative issues. If we do not see a
change in the focus of your posts, we will unfortunately be forced to
ask you to resign from the FAQ list.

If you have any questions, please ask.

Debbie
for the List Admin Team


********************

Cindy -- spending the bulk of her energies on her Mysteries FP




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 10 05:01:45 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:01:45 -0000
Subject: "Work, Don't Talk! (WAS Questions for MEG )
In-Reply-To: <bon57c+bjjt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bon63p+5f7h@eGroups.com>

I have to be quick here, 'cause I'm pretty tired and this netcafe is 
about to close.

Cindy:
I hesitated to post my very own (and very first) *howler* in front of
my friends and colleagues -- sheez, how *embarrassing!* -- but if
the FAQ-only members are truly to know where they stand in the eyes 
of MEG, then it is probably best that we be operating from the same 
base of information.

Tom:
I wasn't aware that Howlers could be issued on the non-public lists 
of HPfGU. Since when is that MEG's prerogative, or policy?

-Tom




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 10 04:56:00 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 04:56:00 -0000
Subject: FAQ roles, and Dark Mark
In-Reply-To: <002a01c3a743$d1157e40$dc59aacf@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bon5p0+cqlk@eGroups.com>


Amanda:
Since you asked [what I do around FAQ]. I signed on because I am an 
editor. I help proof draft-finals, and check links. There hasn't 
been much call for this particular skill set lately; nobody has 
posted a draft-final text for proofing or link-checking in rather a 
long time. I stand ready when this does occur. Not everyone on this 
list is here to write; there are FAQ production support roles.

Tom:
So, am I correct in understanding that everyone else does the work, 
and you proofread it? *That's* what your contribution to FAQ is?

I'd - in all fairness - argue that there's not much call for this 
particular skill set at all. IMHO, it's much more important for 
people to be *writing* FAQ's than simply checking others' work - 
particularly when there's no work to be checked at present. Idle 
hands, you know? Well, idle hands, and the difference between 
positive and negative contributions to projects. Some people come up 
with tons of ideas. Others contribute by shooting ideas down.

So, may I suggest that you contribute to something else around here, 
since the skills of which you're in possession don't seem to be of 
much use at present... and if Eileen is correct, they haven't been 
of much use for the past year - at least.


Amanda (re: Dark Mark draft):
Way cool! I'm looking forward to the Dark Mark stuff; I'd given a 
list of posts to Porphyria back when she was doing Snape, that 
discussed Dark Mark stuff, but she (correctly, I think) decided that 
it wasn't Snape-specific enough to include with that one, and set 
the list aside to help support a later FAQ. I wasn't sure if there 
was, overall, enough stuff for Dark Mark by itself, or if it would 
be rolled into a larger one.

Tom:
Yeah, I found that list of your stuff in the Files section, and all 
of the downthread responses to your posts have been very - *VERY* - 
handy... especially since don't seem to be very many posts out there 
on that stuff. Thanks for compiling that - and Porphyria, for 
putting it up there in html format.

Personally, I insist - without having actually been crossed, yet - 
on including the Dark Mark in the FP, because I'm really interested 
in it, even if there aren't a lot of posts out there. And it was 
GulPlum and his breakdown of the "Morsmordre" incantation (I don't 
speak French, so the whole "Eat Death" thing was completely news to 
me) that got me excited about it a while back.

Actually, your posts on the main list, and the stuff that you 
compiled are - basically - the groundwork for the outline, plus as 
many other posts on the subject that I could find.

Oh, and there was an absolutely *amazing* discussion between you, 
Elkins, and Porphyria that resulted in a lot of discussion on the 
subject back in the thirty-thousands era which is very cool, 
although I'm trying to branch off of that as much as possible. And I 
think you'd be happy to lern that I'm trying to sneak in as much 
relevant Snape stuff (without actually treading on the Snape FP) as 
I can... we'll see how much people let me get away with that, 
though. ;-)

-Tom




From editor at texas.net  Mon Nov 10 11:02:17 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:02:17 -0600
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: FAQ roles, and Dark Mark
References: <bon5p0+cqlk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c3a77a$1c53ab80$1f58aacf@texas.net>

> Amanda:
> Since you asked [what I do around FAQ]. I signed on because I am an
> editor. I help proof draft-finals, and check links. There hasn't
> been much call for this particular skill set lately; nobody has
> posted a draft-final text for proofing or link-checking in rather a
> long time. I stand ready when this does occur. Not everyone on this
> list is here to write; there are FAQ production support roles.
>
> Tom:
> So, am I correct in understanding that everyone else does the work,
> and you proofread it? *That's* what your contribution to FAQ is?
>
> I'd - in all fairness - argue that there's not much call for this
> particular skill set at all. IMHO, it's much more important for
> people to be *writing* FAQ's than simply checking others' work -
> particularly when there's no work to be checked at present. Idle
> hands, you know? Well, idle hands, and the difference between
> positive and negative contributions to projects. Some people come up
> with tons of ideas. Others contribute by shooting ideas down.

(wry grin) Spoken like so many people I deal with every day. *sigh* Editors
are not about changing people's work and they are not about "shooting stuff
down." The proofreading function--whoever does it--is to provide a "second
set of eyes" which have not seen the material before. The compilers and
writers of these things have seen their text so often, they aren't *reading*
it anymore. They know *exactly* what they mean. And a proofreader "test
audience" provides a filter for typos, as well as "this is what I got from
this sentence, is that what you meant?"

You were not here, I guess, in the very busy days when the current set of
FAQs was being produced. There was actually a lot to be done in the
link-checking and reading-over department. I didn't do all of it, by any
stretch. We help where we can, to the extent of our committable resources.

> So, may I suggest that you contribute to something else around here,
> since the skills of which you're in possession don't seem to be of
> much use at present... and if Eileen is correct, they haven't been
> of much use for the past year - at least.

You may suggest it; I don't know if I can. Not everyone has the same amount
of time to offer; not everyone is good at the same sorts of skills. I don't
think that the rationale that it hasn't been used lately, is a good one to
conclude that my skill set won't be needed again. From what you and some
other writers have said, it may be, soon.

As soon as new FAQs get close to roughed out, some of us who are here to
support the writers can get involved again. Why do you think I've been
urging people to work on stuff? I can't do what I do, until some of you
writer-folk do what you do, and I have not liked feeling superfluous.

> Amanda (re: Dark Mark draft):
> Way cool! I'm looking forward to the Dark Mark stuff; I'd given a
> list of posts to Porphyria back when she was doing Snape, that
> discussed Dark Mark stuff, but she (correctly, I think) decided that
> it wasn't Snape-specific enough to include with that one, and set
> the list aside to help support a later FAQ. I wasn't sure if there
> was, overall, enough stuff for Dark Mark by itself, or if it would
> be rolled into a larger one.
>
> Tom:
> Yeah, I found that list of your stuff in the Files section, and all
> of the downthread responses to your posts have been very - *VERY* -
> handy... especially since don't seem to be very many posts out there
> on that stuff. Thanks for compiling that - and Porphyria, for
> putting it up there in html format.
>
> Personally, I insist - without having actually been crossed, yet -
> on including the Dark Mark in the FP, because I'm really interested
> in it, even if there aren't a lot of posts out there. And it was
> GulPlum and his breakdown of the "Morsmordre" incantation (I don't
> speak French, so the whole "Eat Death" thing was completely news to
> me) that got me excited about it a while back.
>
> Actually, your posts on the main list, and the stuff that you
> compiled are - basically - the groundwork for the outline, plus as
> many other posts on the subject that I could find.
>
> Oh, and there was an absolutely *amazing* discussion between you,
> Elkins, and Porphyria that resulted in a lot of discussion on the
> subject back in the thirty-thousands era which is very cool,
> although I'm trying to branch off of that as much as possible. And I
> think you'd be happy to lern that I'm trying to sneak in as much
> relevant Snape stuff (without actually treading on the Snape FP) as
> I can... we'll see how much people let me get away with that,
> though. ;-)

Happy to sneak Snape in any way possible. And Porphyria and Elkins *are*
amazing.

I wasn't able to follow the post-OoP Dark Mark threads, so I've no idea what
they covered--is your FAQ gathering those in too? (really want to read this;
it's "Death Eaters," right?) I remember a couple subject lines going by,
that caught my eye; I imagine you're up-to-date on the main list, though.

~Amanda





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov 10 13:04:51 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:04:51 -0500
Subject: Questions for Abigail (WAS FAQ roles, and Dark Mark)
In-Reply-To: <bon5p0+cqlk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3a78b$44303a90$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi
 
The eye-opening discussion between Tom and Amanda has caused a few more
questions to pop into my head.
 
Some history for our newer members, and then some questions . . . 
 
First, Amanda wrote:
 
***************
 
You were not here, I guess, in the very busy days when the current set
of
FAQs was being produced. There was actually a lot to be done in the
link-checking and reading-over department. I didn't do all of it, by any
stretch.
 
AND
 
Not everyone on this list is here to write; there are FAQ
production support roles.
 
AND
 
As soon as new FAQs get close to roughed out, some of us who are here to
support the writers can get involved again. Why do you think I've been
urging people to work on stuff? I can't do what I do, until some of you
writer-folk do what you do, and I have not liked feeling superfluous.
 
 
********************
 
Ah, yes.  Amanda is talking about the heady days of last fall.  Yes, I
remember it well.  Last November, we took all of the old FPs and the new
FPs, re-formatted them, and moved them to FA's servers.  It took a lot
of leadership and coordination and nagging to get that done, and someone
whose opinion I value very much once told me that pushing that project
along successfully was my HPfGU legacy.  High praise, it was, coming
from this particular person!
 
A lot of people assisted in that effort, of course.  We rounded up
people who had no time to write but who could code (Marina).  We needed
lots of people to check links (Parker, Sheryll).  Theoretically, we
needed people to proofread, although we never brought in anyone for that
purpose because everyone here is a terrific writer, editor and
proofreader.  Indeed, I myself read and edited the Snape FAQ and
probably every other FAQ that has been produced here since I joined.
They teach that in the better law schools nowadays!  :-D
 
But that was then and this is now.  The needs of our group have changed,
IMHO.  We aren't moving to a new server now.  We don't need lurkers.  Or
editors.  Or proofreaders.  Or coders.  Or link checkers.  Or advisors.
OoP was released five months ago, and we need people to *write* FPs.  
 
I think this is something that FAQ (or MEG, depending on who calls the
shots around here) will need to take up.  As it stands, we have an
imbalance between those who work and those who lurk (but who
nevertheless comment with great frequency on administrative issues).
This disconnect between who works and who opines is going to create
problems for us in the future that dwarf the problems we are having now,
not to mention the morale problems that occur when someone who isn't
working tries to force their preferences on those who are working.  
 
For instance, I really think I'm going to need a lot of help on the
Mysteries FP.  That thing is gonna be huge, and it's gonna be great!
But if I am to do the whole thing by myself, it won't be finished before
Book 6.  So I would like to see us bring in lots of new people who
*will* actually write something.  Alas, others who do not wish to work
seem to have an equal say to those who do the work.  And if those who do
not work are on MEG, they have an even greater say than I do because
they can go on MEG and vote to slap down any FAQ proposal they don't
like.  Oh, yuck.
 
How about this, then?  How about if our link checkers and coders and
editors take a little break -- a little voluntary sabbatical from FAQ
status here?  That way, those doing the work can discuss their work and
can discuss FAQ administration without undue interference by those who
are not doing the work but who are waiting for others to get crackin'.
That seems only fair to me.  
 
Just to complete the thought, then, I imagine that our core remaining
FAQ team would look like this (including our indispensable tech types):
 
Abigail - Harry 
Ali - Quidditch
Charis - Harry
Cindy - Mysteries
Debbie - DEs
Dicey - Harry
Derannimer - DEs
Eileen - Crouch and Harry
Elkins - Crouch
Heidi - Law and FA Liaison
Jo - Harry
Joy - Webmistress
Gail - Lupin
Paul - Tech
Penny - Harry
Phyllis - Harry
Morgan - Lupin
Tom - DEs
 
That's about 18 people of about 39.  If the others took a sabbatical,
then we could bring in *at least* 21 bright, talented new members who
would agree to write FPs without making our membership too large.  Can
you imagine how much actual work would get done?
 
Then, once the team had some FPs, we could reach out to get help with
coding and proofreading, if we need it.  There's no reason at all that
the people who helped us with things like proofreading must be on FAQ -
when Jen P left, she mentioned that she'd help with coding if we need it
("If you need some help coding, just let me know.")  So we could keep
folks like Jen and Amanda and other non-writing specialists in our back
pockets and think of them as reinforcements if we ever need their
assistance.  
 
Thoughts?  FAQers?  MEG (via Abigail)?
 
Sorry for the lengthy explanation, but before FAQ can evaluate that
proposal, it will need to check in with MEG, I guess.  So here are the
questions that will require MEG's decision:
 
1.  MEG, what is the FAQ policy concerning sabbaticals for members?  In
FAQ Message 2018, MEG seems to indicate that those who leave a support
list of HPfGU cannot automatically return upon request.  Is the FAQ list
free to adopt a different policy?
 
2.  Is there any reason for proofers and editors and coders and link
checkers to be members of FAQ at all?  Can't FAQ just send out completed
FAQs to volunteers like Amanda and Jen P and they can edit or code
without ever being members of FAQ at all?
 
3.  Does MEG have a policy prohibiting or specifically authorizing the
presence of lurkers - those who do no day-to-day work?  Must FAQ follow
the same policy, or are we free to have a different policy?
 
4.  This last question goes back to Debbie's Prime Directive, and I
apologize for omitting it earlier.  I was hoping that MEG could explain
how exactly the non-FAQ members of MEG learn enough about what goes on
here to have any meaningful opinions about what FAQ should do?  In other
words, how do the non-FAQ members of MEG (Grey Wolf, Kelley, Judy,
Kirstini, Michelle, Petra, Saitaina, Wendy) have any idea how to vote?
Do they abstain due to lack of information?  Or do they defer to the
opinions of their colleagues who are on FAQ?
 
That's it for now, Abigail!  Thanks in advance for your reply!
 
Cindy 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 10 15:18:19 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 15:18:19 -0000
Subject: Questions for Abigail (WAS FAQ roles, and Dark Mark)
In-Reply-To: <000001c3a78b$44303a90$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <booa7r+2l68@eGroups.com>

This has been forwarded to MEG, and will be added to the omnibus 
post currently being assembled on that list.

However, a few comments of my very own.  It's more then a little 
puzzling to me to hear someone talking about a mass induction (not 
inviting one or two people like Michelle or Maria) only 5 months after 
the last one.  Surely the situation on FAQ was roughly the same back 
in June?  I assume that the number of new people introduced was 
calculated so as to allow FAQ to begin work writing FPs, ignoring the 
editors and proofreaders who, as you say, will only step in once the 
writing is done.  If the number of new members wasn't enough, why 
was such a small number introduced?

Looking at this list:

> Abigail - Harry 
> Ali - Quidditch
> Charis - Harry
> Cindy - Mysteries
> Debbie - DEs
> Dicey - Harry
> Derannimer - DEs
> Eileen - Crouch and Harry
> Elkins - Crouch
> Heidi - Law and FA Liaison
> Jo - Harry
> Joy - Webmistress
> Gail - Lupin
> Paul - Tech
> Penny - Harry
> Phyllis - Harry
> Morgan - Lupin
> Tom - DEs

The problem that strikes me is not one of too few writers but too 
many subjects.  Wasn't that the point of establishing the house system 
back in June?  It was supposed to ensure that our energies wouldn't be 
too thinly spread.  We agreed on four topics, this list contains seven. 

Personally, I'm opposed to bringing new people in right now.  I wouldn't 
feel comfortable telling someone that this is a fun place to be, or even 
promising them that they'll get to work on an FP.  I think we should get 
our house in order before inviting new people into it.

Abigail
on behalf of herself




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov 10 16:28:10 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:28:10 -0500
Subject: MEMB/ADMIN:  Questions for Abigail (WAS FAQ roles, and Dark Mark)
In-Reply-To: <booa7r+2l68@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001901c3a7a7$a196d6a0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hey!
 
Abigail:
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
>It's more then a little 
>puzzling to me to hear someone talking about a mass induction (not 
>inviting one or two people like Michelle or Maria) only 5 months after 
>the last one.  
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Mmm, maybe I didn't explain myself very well.  I don't want anyone left
feeling puzzled.  I hope it's OK if I try again.
 
Before June when the Abigail/Tom et al. group arrived in early June,
there were many things we didn't know then that we know now.  For
instance:
 
1.  We didn't know what the OoP issues and characters would be.  We
hadn't seen the book.  We didn't know just how obsolete our old FPs
would be or which ones would be most in need of a tune-up.
 
2.  We had leadership so that this list didn't get bogged down in
administrative discussions.  
 
3.  Some of our new members are now grappling with the considerable
demands of being new elves.  Of the new FAQ members from June, half were
fortunate enough to receive invitations to join the ranks of MEG.  This
diminished the ranks of those whose attentions and energies aren't being
split between the two demanding non-public working lists (MEG and FAQ).
 
4.  We didn't know back in June that we would have no leader such that
administration here would be a 38-way affair.
 
5.  Above all, we didn't know that five months after OoP release, we
would have no progress to show for it except a few revisions to the
pre-OoP Harry FP outline and the preparatory work of the DE team and its
outline that Debbie first posted here in February.  In other words, I
thought we'd hit the ground running, but we haven't, it appears.  This
is no one's fault, but at this rate, the list won't have a single FP for
at least another 5 months.  At best.  
 
Then again, maybe this whole predicament whereby we find ourselves with
too many, er, ladies in waiting, and not enough people doing work is my
fault.  I figured the 8-10 people we brought on in June would be enough,
but I had no idea folks like Amanda viewed themselves *only* as editors.
I figured most everyone here - especially Amanda as a "Premier
Snapologist" -- would eagerly pick up a quill and do some actual FAQ
writing.  It seems we have just learned that is not the case - some
folks are here to wait for others to get a move on.  I don't think much
of that, but if that's where we are stuck, then we just plain need more
bodies.  
 
While I'm here, though, I will say this about the idea of having some
people here whose sole function is to wait for other people to get
something done. . . . 
 
You all may recall that I was leading this list last winter during the
cataloguing phase.  I *could* have sat on my backside and done no
cataloguing myself.  I could have said my purpose was to "lead."  Or
"organize."  Or "edit."  Or "inspire."  Or "wait."
 
I didn't do that.  Instead, I rolled up my sleeves and catalogued until
I was dizzy, wrote HA updates and wrote one entire FPs ("HPfGU-A
History") and one big update with Pippin ("Mysteries"), all the while
dealing with a buttload of administrative issues on- and off-list.  Why
is that, do you think?  Is it because I *like* to catalogue?  No.  Is it
because I have no life?  No.  
 
It is because in a volunteer organization like this one, one only has
the moral authority to lead or inspire or prod or direct or *opine* if
one is actually doing something useful oneself.  Otherwise, one's
opinions are (rightfully) dismissed and carry no more weight than the
opinion of someone you grab right off the street.  I think having a
ruling class of royalty on this list is a recipe for disaster.  So yeah.
I think the dialogue between Tom and Amanda was very useful, so maybe we
need to discuss not only *who* our new members will be, but what they
(and we) will do and how many working members we need.
 
*********************
 
>Surely the situation on FAQ was roughly the same back 
>in June?  
 
*********************
 
No.  In June, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" was released.
There have been 30,000+ posts since.  We have given the list *nothing*
in the way of so much as an HA update.  Given that no one is in charge,
given that some of us do not wish to be nagged, well . . . I don't see
many options other than to invite sufficient numbers of
carefully-selected new members.  
 
I have to consider, though, that it is possible that the list doesn't
care how long it takes us to churn out our first FP.  I think Debbie may
have taken that position (correct me if I'm wrong, Debbie).  I had a
brain wave about that this weekend.  Maybe we should ask the members we
serve about that in the form of an OT-Chatter poll?  If they are *dying*
to see some FPs, then we'd best bring in a bunch of new people to
*write.*  If they don't really care and are in no hurry, then I agree we
wouldn't need any new members at all.  What do you think?  Any
objections if I ask the question on OT-Chatter in a straw poll?
 
**********************
 
>I assume that the number of new people introduced was 
>calculated so as to allow FAQ to begin work writing FPs, ignoring the 
>editors and proofreaders who, as you say, will only step in once the 
>writing is done.  If the number of new members wasn't enough, why 
>was such a small number introduced?
 
**********************
 
That would be an incorrect assumption, I'm afraid, so I'm glad you
brought it up.
 
I sure didn't think that over half of the FAQ Team Members would do
*nothing* in the way of actual work until others produced FPs.
Goodness, no!  Further, I don't recall anyone ever saying that the folks
who arrived in June would be the last of the folks ever needed to write
FPs.  The number chosen wasn't due to any complex needs analysis.  Think
of it as just a start.  
 
 
********************
>The problem that strikes me is not one of too few writers but too 
>many subjects.  Wasn't that the point of establishing the house system 
>back in June?  It was supposed to ensure that our energies wouldn't be 
>too thinly spread.  We agreed on four topics, this list contains seven.

 
******************************
 
Close, but not quite right.
 
We didn't agree on four topics.  Ali was working on Quidditch outside
the house system, you'll recall.  Heidi also made clear that she would
be doing some things outside the house system.  
 
IMHO, the House System is a great idea, but it isn't working well at
all.  See, when I took over in October, I had to come up with *some*
sort of strategy to cure what ailed us then - little was getting done
and even completed FPs were languishing without being uploaded.  I
diagnosed the problem plaguing the FAQ list back then as being spread
too thin and a lack of strong and aggressive leadership.  I suggested we
work together more and believed that having folks sitting in separate
corners working on FPs would lead to no output.  I still that is
correct.
 
The problem we encountered in February, though, was that once we
finished the cataloguing, people retreated to their separate corners.
List volume dropped off.  There was no way to know if anything was
getting done.  The House System was the fix for that.  It allowed us to
all be inspired by the efforts of others, but to have a prefix to skip
if we didn't have time to immerse ourselves in the details of other FPs.
 
******************

Personally, I'm opposed to bringing new people in right now.  I wouldn't

feel comfortable telling someone that this is a fun place to be, or even

promising them that they'll get to work on an FP.  I think we should get

our house in order before inviting new people into it.
 
******************************
 
Mmmm, that's one way to look at it.  You'll remember, though, that when
you arrived, this list was *reeling* from Modgate, with no one working
and no one posting.  That was fixed with an influx of new members.  
 
That said, I have similar concerns about bringing people in now, but for
different reasons than Abigail.  I don't know how I could look them in
the eye and invite them into what seems increasingly like a slave ship
with MEG at the helm.  Perhaps if MEG were to stand down and let FAQ
handle the FAQ list rather than treat the FAQ-only members as
second-class citizens with tiny bunks down in steerage, things would
improve?  
 
Next, could I make a suggestion for the operation of our Liaison?  To
avoid confusion, I think it would be for the best for Abigail to post
separately when she is wearing her Liaison hat versus her FAQ list
member hat rather than combine those two functions.  That will make it
crystal clear that Abigail's own POV isn't affecting her approach when
she performs her official Liaison duties, and it will be easier for us
FAQ-only members to keep things straight.
 
Finally, I hope I haven't upset MEG by speaking out on these
administrative issues.  Unfortunately, I have a rather unique
institutional perspective, and at times I am the only one around with
knowledge of *why* things were done in the past or why.  So when I see
folks making incorrect assumptions about these matters, I feel I owe it
to us all to correct the record so we stay on track.  Again, I apologize
if this was inappropriate participation on my part.  
 
Cindy 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Nov 10 21:44:24 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:44:24 -0000
Subject: A Way Out, Perhaps? 
Message-ID: <bop0ro+da61@eGroups.com>

Hey, MEGgers and FAQers,

I'm sending this to both groups in an attempt to fix this huge mess we
have here.  I'm not seeing a lot of happy vibes out of anyone here,
quite frankly.  When relations among the Mods began to sour, they
figured that scapegoating one person was the way out.  It wasn't, and
it cost everyone involved dearly.  

So now we have a chance to try to do better.  I am willing to try if
the rest of you are.

It seems to me that we have four distinct (but overlapping) groups of
people here.  

Veteran MEGs
New MEGs
Veteran FAQers
New FAQers

The new MEGs and the new FAQers, poor things, are getting a great big
face full of Modgate, which was the one thing that no one wanted.  I
am angry with MEG for screwing me for no reason (or, should I say,
selfish reasons) in August, and MEG is showing all kinds of signs of
being really angry with me.  Our newest members just plain don't
deserve it, IMHO, and our list members deserve an administration that
is not locking horns all the time.  

But what to do?  

Our choices, it seems, are rather limited.  We can keep going down
this road where MEG retreats farther and farther into its Tower, doing
weird things like sending howlers to me because you don't like me but
ignoring the rudeness of the MEGs on FAQ, all the while preparing
Omnibus declarations of its infinite authority.  FAQers can keep
pulling their hair out because folks like Amanda openly declare that
they Will Not Write but engage in all manner of disruptive behavior. 
We built this community, I guess.  I suppose we can finish burning it
to the ground it if you want.  

I have an idea, and it is an idea inspired by one of the events in
Modgate.  You will recall that Neil proposed dissolving the Mod team?

I think that is what should be done with list administration right
now.  I think that *all* MEGs and FAQ members who were members during
Modgate should leave MEG and FAQ.  Period.  A clean break, like, this
week.  No exceptions other than Paul (for tech work and FA liaison)
and Porphyria or Joy (webmistress) and Eileen (who was shut out of MEG
wrongfully in the first place).  We will be left with a skeleton crew
for FAQ writing and MEG, but experienced enough to get by until new
people can join administration.  A skeleton crew with no axes to
grind.  A skeleton crew that can think clearly.  Then there should be
*full* reunification of MEG and FAQ, with a wide open door between
them, and the former MEGs and FAQers will not be allowed to join, even
if invited again someday.  

Can anyone give me any reason whatever that makes this plan *not* in
the best interests of HPfGU?  Any reason that is not selfish, that is?
 Maybe jumping out of the plane will be easier if we all do it
together?  We'd all be giving up something we love to preserve
something we love.

Give it some thought, OK?

Cindy

 





From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 10 22:30:00 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:30:00 -0000
Subject: MEMB/ADMIN:  Questions for Abigail (WAS FAQ roles, and Dark Mark)
In-Reply-To: <001901c3a7a7$a196d6a0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bop3h8+jems@eGroups.com>

Abigail wrote:
>The problem that strikes me is not one of too few writers but too
>many subjects. Wasn't that the point of establishing the house system
>back in June? It was supposed to ensure that our energies wouldn't be
>too thinly spread. We agreed on four topics, this list contains 
seven.

Tom:
Again, I have to be quick here... got a ton of questions regarding 
Cindy's Howler as compared to what the HB File says Howlers are used 
for, because now that I know that Cindy was Howlered for asking 
questions and trying to resolve administrative issues, I'm kinda 
afraid that MEG's going to Howler me for asking questions and trying 
to resolve administrative issues. Seems like an obvious connection to 
make, y'know? So while I'm dangling by a thread, I figure I better 
ask as many questions as I can. ;-)

Anyways, I think Abigail has a point here (that perhaps we have too 
many topics), but would like to add a sentiment to that.

Seven topics may be too many topics for eighteen people to tackle - 
as is the case right now. 

However, I don't think that it's too many topics for thirty-nine 
people to tackle. I.e. if everyone on FAQ - aside from the purely-
tech folks - was working on an FP, we could tackle as many as eight - 
or even nine - topics easily... that'd be four people per topic with 
seven (or three, in the case of nine topics) left over to do other 
stuff.

-Tom, who is wondering if he can entice Amanda to join the Dark Side 
Slytherin Team ("Weasley is our king..."), since Death Eaters are a 
specialty of hers and her posts figure prominently in the stuff I've 
collected to date. ;-)




From editor at texas.net  Tue Nov 11 00:07:46 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:07:46 -0000
Subject: MEMB/ADMIN:  Questions for Abigail (WAS FAQ roles, and Dark Mark)
In-Reply-To: <bop3h8+jems@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bop98i+4dpd@eGroups.com>

> -Tom, who is wondering if he can entice Amanda to join the Dark 
Side 
> Slytherin Team ("Weasley is our king..."), since Death Eaters are a 
> specialty of hers and her posts figure prominently in the stuff 
I've 
> collected to date. ;-)

With pleasure! How can I help? (limited time, but my resources are 
yours)

~Amanda (is there a secret handshake?)




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Nov 11 15:27:41 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:27:41 -0000
Subject: Proposed Poll
Message-ID: <boqv5d+7ec8@eGroups.com>

Hey!

Following on to our discussion about which FPs we should be writing, I
thought it might be a good idea to ask the list what they think. 
After all, if list members are way more interested in a Luna FP than
Lupin, that might inform our decision about how to set our priorities.  

I think we should set the poll to have names show, and we should ask
that people vote for no more than four choices.  If names show and if
30 people desperately want a Lupin FAQ, then we'd have a list of 30
potential new members for any FPs that none of our current team
members is willing to undertake!  How cool is *that!*

I think it would be super to have the poll go up on the main list, but
while MEG ponders the merits of that idea, I guess we can just post
the thing to OT-Chatter.  We'd need two polls (one for new subjects
and one for updates) because we have more than 25 possible FAQ subjects.

How about something like this?

************************

The "Fantastic Posts And Where To Find Them" team is getting to work
on some *new* essays.  Which of these new FPs interests you most (vote
for no more than four; names will show):

Character Names
Class and Cultural Prejudice
DEs, Aurors and Wizarding Justice
Dumbledore
Gender and Race
Hagrid
Harry
Literary Comparisons
Lupin
Luna
Malfoy Family
Myths and Legends
Quidditch
Religion
Umbridge
Voldemort
Other (suggestions welcome on OT-Chatter)


**************************

The "Fantastic Posts And Where To Find Them" team is getting to work
on updating some of the existing "Fantastic Post" essays.  Which of
these possible revisions interests you most (vote for no more than
four; names will show):

Animal Characters
Black
Clothing
Fanfiction
Hermione
James and Lily
Lawsuits
Neville
Magical Devices
Mysteries and Inconsistencies
Shipping
Snape
Spells and Charms
Weasley Family
Other (suggestions welcome on OT-Chatter)

*******************

Let me know if I got any of the FPs in the wrong place or made any
other errors.  I did this pretty fast, so I may well have made some
mistakes.

Mmmm, why don't we try to reach a decision on this in a week? 
Comments?  Thoughts?  Objections?  Suggestions?

Cindy




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Tue Nov 11 18:50:55 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:50:55 -0000
Subject: Proposed Poll
In-Reply-To: <boqv5d+7ec8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <borb2f+20qf@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:


>>> Following on to our discussion about which FPs we should be 
writing, I thought it might be a good idea to ask the list what they 
think. 

After all, if list members are way more interested in a Luna FP than 
Lupin, that might inform our decision about how to set our 
priorities. <<<

At this stage, I'd have to disagree. For a start, I've nearly 
finished my Quidditch FP, so other than revisions or the quality of 
the stuff itself, it has gone past the stage where it matters what 
other list members think should be a high priority. It just needs to 
be finished.

In terms of other FPs, it should still fall to the writers of FPs as 
it is their interest and work that will get the essay written, not 
what anybody else wants. 

Ali







From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Nov 11 19:59:28 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:59:28 -0000
Subject: Proposed Poll
In-Reply-To: <borb2f+20qf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <borf30+lr1m@eGroups.com>

Hey!

Ali:

>For a start, I've nearly 
> finished my Quidditch FP, so other than revisions or the quality of 
> the stuff itself, it has gone past the stage where it matters what 
> other list members think should be a high priority. It just needs to 
> be finished.

That's great news, Ali!  It really is!  I can't wait to read the draft!

If you like, we can just remove the Quidditch option from the poll. 
Would that address your concerns?

 
> In terms of other FPs, it should still fall to the writers of FPs as 
> it is their interest and work that will get the essay written, not 
> what anybody else wants. 

Yikes!  We have some major philosophical differences here, huh?  ;-)

Maybe it is just me, but I hope we'd want to think of ourselves as
being in *service* to our list members, not doing whatever *we* want
regardless of what the list might want.  I would hope that when list
administrators have decisions to make, we would consult with the list
members whenever practicable.  We've surely done this in the past --
polling the lists on closing for OoP release, elfing proposals, naming
the HBF, and so forth.  The use of polls to gauge list opinion is a
very welcome development at HPfGU, IMHO.

So if it turns out that the list members want to see different FPs
than the ones we are thinking of writing, why not find that out?  If
our preferences are out of step with the list, why not invite some
list members to join us to work on the ones that interest them?  I'm
not saying that if "Mysteries" scores higher than "Harry," then the
"Harry" team must dissolve.  I'm saying that gathering information
*from the list members we serve* to inform our decisions is a good
thing on the whole.

What, may I ask, is the harm in gathering this information from the
list?  

Cindy




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 11 20:49:45 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:49:45 -0000
Subject: Proposed Poll
In-Reply-To: <borf30+lr1m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bori19+jnk6@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
 
> Ali:
 
> > In terms of other FPs, it should still fall to the writers of FPs as 
> > it is their interest and work that will get the essay written, not 
> > what anybody else wants. 
> 
> Yikes!  We have some major philosophical differences here, huh?  ;-)
> 
> Maybe it is just me, but I hope we'd want to think of ourselves as
> being in *service* to our list members, not doing whatever *we* want
> regardless of what the list might want.  

True, but as you yourself once told me, we want everyone here to have 
fun, and to write about the things that interest them.  I would suspect 
that the main list readership would like us to write all the FPs, and that 
is what we should be aiming for, but to ensure that none of us feel as if 
we're chained to our desks, we should be writing about the things that 
interest us.  That was why we polled the group (FAQ, that is) back in June, 
and came up with four subjects to concentrate on (Weasleys, DEs and 
Justice, Lupin and Harry, I believe).

Abigail




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Nov 11 23:13:17 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:13:17 -0500
Subject: ADMIN:   Re: Proposed Poll
In-Reply-To: <bori19+jnk6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001101c3a8a9$644eefa0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Howdy!
 
Abigail:
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
True, but as you yourself once told me, we want everyone here to have 
fun, and to write about the things that interest them.  
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
 
Ah, I see what the problem is here.  And it is definitely my fault for
not explaining what I had in mind.  I do apologize for not being clear.
 
See, this isn't a zero-sum game, IMHO.  If a poll shows that the list
members want an Umbridge FP, that doesn't mean we have to take resources
away from the Harry team, ditch the Quidditch FP, or abandon the Weasley
FP.  The Harry team, for instance, can keep right on working even if not
one single list member is interested in that FP.  As I see it, if we
learned that the list desperately wants an Umbridge FAQ and couldn't
care less about Lupin, maybe the Lupin team would decide to switch to
Umbridge.  Everyone would be happy.  Or maybe some of our members who
are waiting to edit or link check would be inspired to pick up a quill
write an Umbridge FP.  
 
Or maybe no one here would be interested in Umbridge.  That would be
fine.  In that case, we could consider being responsive to the wishes of
the list members and we could bring in some people who *would* write a
Dumbledore FP.  Everyone would be happy.
 
Or maybe we'd learn that the list is *desperate* to see that Harry FP,
and this might inspire our Harry team to stay hard at work.
 
Believe me, the *last* thing I want to do is get in the way of anyone's
fun or make someone write anything they don't want to write.  No, no,
no.  I mean, if Ali and Abigail believe a poll would yield no
information of use to them personally, that's OK.  They can completely
ignore the poll results, I suppose.  I guess I'd announce the poll with
an ADMIN or some such, and I could be clear that the poll is only
advisory.  
 
I'm very interested in gathering this information, though, so I was
rather hoping you all might indulge me on this.  So.  Can anyone think
of a reason why we would want to avoid even listening to what the list
wants?  Oh, and Abigail?  Will you forward this series of messages about
the poll to MEG to see if they'll allow me to put the poll on the main
list?
 
 
>>>>>>>>>>>
 
I would suspect that the main list readership would like us to write all
the FPs, and that 
is what we should be aiming for, but to ensure that none of us feel as
if 
we're chained to our desks, we should be writing about the things that 
interest us.  
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
That's why we would allow them to vote for only four choices.  We're
trying to discern what they most want to see, with knowledge that
everyone would love to see everything done tomorrow.  
 
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
That was why we polled the group (FAQ, that is) back in June, 
and came up with four subjects to concentrate on (Weasleys, DEs and 
Justice, Lupin and Harry, I believe).


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Actually, I don't agree that you've put your finger on where this issue
stands.  The pre-OoP FAQ list poll helped us pin down which FPs most
interested the group, as you say.  We never properly revisited the issue
post-OoP as we had planned, so the results aren't all that valid anyway.
We also seem to have lost the Lupin FP draft *again,* so that is another
fact that isn't reflected in the FAQ list polls from this summer.  I'm
not sure we'd get the same results if we polled this group again,
frankly.
 
 
BTW, while I'm re-living the pain of losing the Lupin FAQ twice, is
everyone remembering to upload?  We have now lost two different versions
(one by Amy lost due to hard drive failure and one by Elkins and Amy
lost because neither can be reached).  I'd hate to lose any other FPs,
especially if Quidditch is almost finished!
 
Cindy  

 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Nov 11 23:47:11 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:47:11 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] RE: ADMIN:   Re: Proposed Poll
In-Reply-To: <001101c3a8a9$644eefa0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <001701c3a8ae$20573d70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Whoops!
 
Little typo here, probably owing to the pounding headache I have from
having the flu . . . 
 
I wrote:
 
>>>>>>>>
In that case, we could consider being responsive to the wishes of
the list members and we could bring in some people who *would* write a
Dumbledore FP.  Everyone would be happy.
 
>>>>>>>>
 
Whoops!  *Umbridge.*  Not Dumbledore.  Sorry for the confusion.
 
Cindy - going to bed with a cup of hot tea
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 12 09:14:42 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:14:42 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:   Re: Proposed Poll
In-Reply-To: <001101c3a8a9$644eefa0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bostm2+ruqa@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>  
> That was why we polled the group (FAQ, that is) back in June, 
> and came up with four subjects to concentrate on (Weasleys, DEs and 
> Justice, Lupin and Harry, I believe).
> 
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>  
> Actually, I don't agree that you've put your finger on where this issue
> stands.  The pre-OoP FAQ list poll helped us pin down which FPs most
> interested the group, as you say.  We never properly revisited the issue
> post-OoP as we had planned, so the results aren't all that valid anyway.

True.  I actually suggested restarting those polls when I returned from my 
OOP hiatus, but there were no takers at the time.  Given, however, that at 
least two of the teams are more or less up and running - the DEs stuff 
seems to be coming together, and I've had some progress with Harry - I'm 
not sure that polling at this point won't be counter-productive.

I forwarded your message to MEG as requested.

Abigail




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Nov 12 10:29:48 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 05:29:48 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] ADMIN:   Re: Proposed Poll
In-Reply-To: <bostm2+ruqa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3a907$e6707220$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi!
 
Abigatil:
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
I'm 
not sure that polling at this point won't be counter-productive.


 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
But *how* could knowing what the list thinks be counter-productive?  I'm
just baffled by the defensive, almost knee-jerk negative reaction to
creative ideas on this list at times.  Can anyone enlighten me?
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I forwarded your message to MEG as requested.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Outstanding, Abigail!
 
Could you make sure your forward all of my messages on this subject,
just to make sure MEG isn't confused and MEG has the full picture when
they rule on my proposal?  And make sure they understand that I would
only be seeking their blessing on a main list poll.  I assume we can run
any poll we like on OTC.
 
Thanks *so* much, Abigail!
 
Cindy



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cs4tjmi/M=267637.4116719.5338353.1261774/D=eg
roupweb/S=1707544108:HM/EXP=1068714884/A=1853618/R=0/*http:/www.netflix.
com/Default?mqso=60178338&partid=4116719> click here

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116719.5338353.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1853618/rand=924160201> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 12 22:33:30 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:33:30 -0000
Subject: MEG's Answers to Cindy's Questions
Message-ID: <boucfq+bglk@eGroups.com>

Hi,
 
Cindy asked some excellent questions, some of which were already
being debated on MEG. I can't answer all of them, because quite
frankly we don't have the answers yet, but I will answer those that
I can.
 
> 1. How are FAQ members to know when Interim Liaison Abigail is
> speaking in her official capacity on behalf of MEG versus on behalf of
> herself? Will she specify this in each message, or will another
> protocol be observed?
 
I believe that the simplest way about this is to assume that, unless
I (or whoever ends up as the liaison) state otherwise, the message
comes from me personally. Also, I don't see that there's going to be
a lot of room for confusion, as the kind of messages that the
liaison will deal with will probably start with the line 'I
forwarded this to MEG, and they said', or 'MEG has asked me to relay
that'. The liaison is first and foremost a member of FAQ, and only
then the MEG liaison. (For the rest of this message, I'll simply
write 'I' when answering questions about the liaison, because it
means typing less, but I'm referring to the person holding the
job, not myself spcifically.)
 
And for heaven's sake, it's not as if I'm President. There's no need
to capitalize interim liaison.
 
> 2. Does Abigail unilaterally decide which FAQ messages to forward to
> MEG?
 
The liaison will decide which messages should be forwarded to MEG - I
don't see this as being a difficult or obscure decision. If an issue
requires MEG permission, then obviously the liaison will forward it
to MEG, likewise if an FAQ member asks MEG a question.
 
> If so, will Abigail always advise FAQ when this has been done?
 
Yes, I will announce when a message has been forwarded to MEG, as
Cindy's was.
 
> If not, must FAQ members make an official request that a message be
> forwarded, and should that be done on FAQ, off-list to Abigail, or to
> MEG directly?
 
If I don't announce that I've forwarded a message, then FAQ members
may assume that I haven't done so, and that they should ask me to do
so if they want me to (since FAQ is not a high-volume list, I see no
problem with doing this on-list).
 
> Once an issue has been raised on MEG with the Liaison,
> will the Liaison provide periodic progress reports? If these reports
> are not forthcoming, may FAQ members inquire of MEG directly via the
> owners' account, or must they seek information only from Abigail on
> FAQ?
 
MEG would like to be able to commit to a time-table whenever FAQ, or
for that matter any listmember, asks us a question. Unfortunately,
due to RL considerations,this is often not possible. The direction
we're currently leaning in is that a preliminary response will be
posted within 48 hours, but this response might well be 'we're
looking into this and will keep you posted'. Since, as I said, RL
considerations often get in the way and ideas do get ignored
sometimes, I would consider it acceptable to be reminded about an
issue that awaits a MEG response, if a response has not been made
within the time period that MEG specified. I would then remind MEG
about the issue.
 
> 3. When Abigail forwards a FAQ issue to MEG, will she copy the
> transmittal message to FAQ?
 
I hadn't planned to do this.
 
> Will the transmittal message contain
> advocacy for Abigail's personal position or contain any sort of
> recommendation or commentary?
 
Since, as I said, I expect transmitted messages to be along the
lines of 'FAQ wants to post an ADMIN', I hardly think advocacy is
the right word. I will not include any personal opinions as part of
the forwarded message, but, of course, I will offer my opinions
separately when appropriate.
 
> Will she also forward or summarize
> competing points of view or opine on the weight of FAQ opinion in the
> transmittal?
 
If contrasting points of view are posted on FAQ and I feel that they
are germane to the issue and MEG needs to hear them, I will of
course forward them as well - that's the job description.
 
> Most importantly, will she copy FAQ on the MEG comments
> so that the FAQ members can take the MEG concerns into account in
> deciding how to adjust their proposal in the event the proposal is
> denied or modified or if MEG has other reservations?
 
No. The liaison will forward MEG's reply, which will naturally come
with an explanation. If FAQ feels that they can adjust their
proposal accordingly, then of course that new proposal will be re-
forwarded to MEG.
 
> 4. MEG selected Abigail and declared that she will serve until a
> Liaison is elected.
 
Actually, MEG didn't select me, I volunteered.
 
> Given that MEG selected Abigail and that MEGs
> outnumber non-MEGs on FAQ, will the MEG/FAQ members abstain from the
> selection of a Replacement Liaison so that it is not a foregone
> conclusion?
 
Why would the selection be foregone conclusion just because MEGs
outnumber non-MEGs? We don't all think alike, and there is hardly
only one person on FAQ who might be suitable as a liaison.
 
> Can the Replacement Liaison be a non-MEG who will then be
> admitted to MEG?
 
MEG has been discussing this issue - that's why FAQ hasn't yet begun
the process of selecting the permanent liason. MEG will keep you
apprised.
 
> Can FAQ or MEG change the Replacement Liaison if
> they are not happy with his/her performance, and how is this to be
> done?
 
If any FAQ member has a concern with the liaison which cannot
be resolved by direct communication, they may contact the Ombudself
(currently Pippin), whose function is to serve as a mediator in such
disagreements.
 
> Can FAQ select their nominee in some fashion other than an
> election?
 
What other fashion would be acceptable?
 
> Are there any current members of MEG who refuse to function
> as Liaison such that the FAQ list members can cross them off the list
> of potential nominees?
 
Again, until MEG makes some more concrete decisions about the nature
of the liaison, we don't know whether anybody will be ineligible.
When we begin the selection process, we will of course post a list
of eligible nominees.
 
> 5. Presumably, some MEG matters are not the concern of FAQ. What are
> the boundaries between what MEG considers confidential versus those
> that are not considered confidential?
 
This a difficult question, and one which MEG itself has been
debating for several months. I'm afraid I can't give a coherent
answer at this point, except that policy issues that don't concern
FAQ should not, of course, be discussed on that list.
 
> 6 Who decides who may be a member of FAQ? What is the maximum number
> of members MEG will allow FAQ to be?
 
Since MEG has existed the FAQ list has always been under its
supervision and membership decisions were either implicitly or
explicitly approved by MEG. FAQ members have been chosen by
different means throughout its existence. The most recent group of
members was selected by the FAQ membership, under the authority
granted by MEG to Cindy to jumpstart the project. In the past, new
members were selected and/or approved by the mods. At this point,
MEG has not yet formulated a policy regarding member selection for
FAQ, but we feel that it is important to resolve the differences
between the two groups before coming to a decision on this subject.
 
> 7. Do MEGs have an automatic right to join FAQ upon request? Must
> MEG members write FAQs as a condition of membership, or may they
> observe?
 
In the past, MEGs were automatically allowed to be members of FAQ if
they so chose, and felt that they had something to contribute to the
project.
 
> 8. Have any FAQ policy decision been made by MEG already? Are there
> any current policies of FAQ that MEG wishes to or plans to overturn?
 
I'm going to need you to be a little more specific in your
definition of policy, Cindy.
 
> 9. Does MEG have the power to moderate, demand the resignation of, or
> oust a FAQ member?
 
Yes. However, moderation is an action appropriate for public lists,
as it is an "inculturation," educational, and control measure. MEG
expects that the members of FAQ should not need this type of
support -- all candidates for FAQ, to be effective in the purpose of
this list, will have been on the public lists for a sufficient
duration to be familiar with the list rules. If a member of FAQ (or
MEG, for that matter) were to severly step out of line, we would
demand their resignation. If they then refused to resign, we would
consider what further action to take.
 
> If so, will there be a system of howlers before
> this is done?
 
No. Moderation, and to a lesser degree, howlers, have always been
intended as more educational than disciplinary in nature. [It's
perhaps unfortunate that the slang "howler" became attached to the
offlist reminders; it carries a quite negative connotation.] MEG has
always understood that there are many list rules, and that it takes
some time to "learn the ropes," and that anyone can slip up.
However, as stated above, FAQ members are expected to already have
been around long enough to know "the ropes," and administering the
formal systems of the public list is quite effort enough.
Disciplinary issues on FAQ have been extremely rare, we hope this
will continue, and a case-by-case handling based on each situation,
precedent, and (when it is finalized) the Code of Conduct should
be sufficient for a list of FAQ's maturity.
 
> Will all FAQ members learn of any disciplinary action
> taken or howlers sent to any other FAQ members,
 
Yes, when we believe it is warranted.
 
> Can a FAQ member advise other FAQ members
> of disciplinary action taken?
 
They may do so if they wish.
 
> Can a FAQ member complain to MEG (via
> the liaison) about rudeness on FAQ or rudeness off-list by a FAQ
> member or MEG?
 
Yes, just like any other listmember.
 
> 10. MEG has declared that "members of FAQ are responsible for much of
> the governance and certain policy decisions of the list." Which
> portions of governance and which policy decisions are the
> responsibility of FAQ and which are the responsibility of MEG?
 
Again, this is being debated by MEG itself, and we will keep you
advised.
 
> 11. MEG has declared that "FAQ list must adhere to those policies
> that MEG determines apply to all of the lists in the HP4GU family of
> lists." Which policies are those? Does this extend to matters such
> as snipping and combining and attribution as stated in the HBF, or do
> you mean something else? Will MEG provide the non-MEG FAQ members
> with a statement of its community-wide or MEG internal policies on
> matters such as membership, discipline, governance, pulling rank, and
> scrubbing so that FAQ members will know which MEG policies apply to
> FAQ? Are FAQ members allowed to object to or contest the merits of
> (that is, weigh in on) these internal MEG policies that apply to FAQ?
 
MEG is in the process of formalizing a Code of Conduct, which will
set forth in writing existing standards of behavior on all HPFGU
lists.
 
 
> 12. Why does every moderator of this list retain the power to invite
> a new member, which is presumably something the FAQ (or the MEG list?)
> list would decide.
 
As a matter of convenience, and because we don't expect anyone to
abuse the privilege.
 
> 13. Heidi is not a MEG. Why was Heidi chosen as the only non-MEG FAQ
> to have heightened security privileges?
 
The group chosen was chosen to represent a cross-section of the FAQ
population. Heidi is a non-MEG. Also, the FPs are stored on a FA
server.
 
> 14. Once FAQ decides a FAQ policy question, must the MEG members of
> FAQ abide by that decision until such time as it is overturned by MEG?

Yes, as does everyone else on the FAQ list, including non-MEGs.
 
> 15. What is the current governing structure of MEG, and what are the
> zones of responsibility of each MEG, e.g. ombudself, facilitators,
> committee heads, etc.?
 
Again, this is being formulated in the Code of Conduct.
 
> 16. Prior to making the unilateral changes to moderator privileges
> for security reasons, did any FAQ member make any threat to delete the
> FAQ list? Has any FAQ member ever threatened to delete the FAQ list,
> and if so, why is that person still a member of the FAQ list? Why
> were the remaining trustworthy members of the FAQ list who did *not*
> threaten to delete the list not advised off-list and in confidence
> that these steps would be taken?
 
No. However, the other, and more dangerous of the two powers
curtailed was the ability to change the moderator privileges of
group members. So, for example, at this point I don't have the power
to delete the list, but I do have the power to give myself that
power.
 
There has been an instance in which a member of FAQ unilaterally
curtailed the privileges of other FAQ members in such a way that
they were unable to change them back.
 
Abigail
For the list administration




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 12 22:46:24 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:46:24 -0000
Subject: MEG's Answers to Tom
Message-ID: <boud80+dj24@eGroups.com>

Hi,
 
As with the responses to Cindy's questions, it isn't in MEG's power
to answer all of these questions, as some of these issues are still
being discussed. Furthermore, there is some overlap between Tom's
questions and Cindy's, and I won't duplicate answers, to avoid
confusion.
 
> Debbie:
> The FAQ group is somewhat different from the public groups in that
> its function is to review posts to the main list and write essays
> (with links) about them.
>
> - According to MEG, how long is a member of FAQ allowed to remain
> idle in group discussions and still maintain membership on the FAQ
> list?
>
> - In which cases are exceptions made?
>
> - By whom - MEG or FAQ - are exceptions decided?
>
> - Can exceptions be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?
>
> - According to MEG, how long is a member of FAQ allowed to not
> participate in the production of FP's and still maintain membership
> on the FAQ list?
>
> - In which cases are exceptions made?
>
> - By whom - MEG or FAQ - are exceptions decided?
>
> - Can exceptions be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?
 
MEG's policy regarding FAQ membership is still being formulated, and
this is only one aspect of it.
 
At this point, MEG does not intend to concern itself with FAQ's
internal matters. However, we would hope that FAQ would keep its
internal policies aligned with the spirit so well-expressed by Cindy
in a recruitment email:
 
>>You can put in as much or as little time as you like, and you can
work on an essay on your own or with a group. We're very flexible
about most everything.>>
 
>
> Debbie:
> FAQ is run as a semi-autonomous list, meaning that members of FAQ are
> responsible for much of the governance and certain policy decisions
> of the list.
>
> Tom:
> - For which FAQ list governance issues are FAQ responsible?
 
The writing, production, and publication of FPs and internal matters
which don't concern other HPfGU lists.
 
>
> - For which FAQ list governance issues are MEG responsible?
 
External matters which affect the other HPfGU list (such as posting
an ADMIN on main). MEG is also the overarching group in charge of
FAQ, which means that the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the
FP project does get carried out falls to MEG.
 
>
> - (Re: above) Please list these.
>
> - In which cases does MEG retain the right to override FAQ decisions?
 
When the decisions affect the other HPfGU lists, or when we believe
that the future of the FP project is is jeopardy.
 
>
> - Can overrides be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?
 
Overrides can be contested by appealing to MEG via the liaison.
 
>
> - For which FAQ list policy decisions are FAQ responsible?
>
> - For which FAQ list policy decisions are MEG responsible?
>
> - (Re: above) Please list these.
>
> - In which cases does MEG retain the right to override FAQ policies?
 
See above answers regarding governance issues.
 
>
> - How are overrides decided?
>
> - Can overrides be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?
 
Quite simply, this issue has never come up, and therefore there is
no protocol for it.
 
>
>
> Debbie:
> This means that FAQ must be in open communication with MEG, and that
> the FAQ list must adhere to those policies that MEG determines apply
> to all of the lists in the HP4GU family of lists.
>
> Tom:
> - What policies has MEG determined apply to all of the HPfGU lists?
>
> - Please provide a list of these policies.
>
> - Please provide the policies themselves.
>
> - If the policies cannot be provided, then why not?
 
Answered in Cindy's response.
 
> Debbie:
> We intend for this person to be agreed upon by members of both
> groups, and so will take nominations for a liaison.
>
> Tom:
> - According to what extent is MEG's "intent" subject to change?
 
To the same extent that any decision made by a group of human beings
is subject to change.
 
>
> - According to what process is this agreement going to take place?
 
Through a process of election.
 
>
> - How is this process to be determined?
 
MEG is still discussing the selection of a liaison. When these
decisions are made, we will open the floor to FAQ. We have several
possibilities in mind for the liaison, and we'd like to have FAQ's
input in the matter.
 
>
> - Does MEG possess the authority to override FAQ's decisions
> regarding the liaison?
 
No.
 
>
> - Can FAQ contest any override? If so, how? If not, why not?
 
Irrelevant. See above.
 
>
> - How are nominations to be proposed, and to whom?
 
Again, as soon as MEG completes its discussion process, it will
present FAQ with several options. When one is selected, the
nominations will be proposed accordingly.
 
>
> - How - and where - is a complete list of nominees going to be made
> available for all members of both groups to consider?
 
When the selection process begins, a list of nominees will of course
be posted.
 
>
> - By whom - and how - will the final decision be made?
 
By the members of FAQ.
 
>
> - Is the decision final?
 
The suggestion has been made the the liaison job will be term-
limited. This is being discussed by MEG and will also be brought to
FAQ for consideration. At this point, we had considered that the
person selected as liaison would serve in that capacity until such
time as he or she decides that they no longer wish to do so.
 
>
> - If decided by MEG, can the decision be contested? If so, how? If
> not, why not?
 
Irrelevant, see above.
 
>
> - How long will the liaison serve?
 
See above.
 
>
> - In the eventual event that a liaison is to be replaced, what will
> the procedure be at that time?
 
The same procedure in which the original liaison was chosen.
 
>
> - When will the final decision regarding the liaison be made?
 
We haven't decided on a timetable yet, but we hope to make a final
decision by the end of this month (November).
 
>
> - Can this timeline be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?
 
Yes, by saying so.
 
>
>
> Debbie:
> Official comments by MEG will come only from the liaison, and he or
> she will be responsible for relaying questions or requests from FAQ
> to MEG, as well as relaying MEG's response.
>
> Tom:
> If I understand this correctly, then MEG statements will now come
> *only* through the liaison. For the time-being, this liaison is
> Abigail.
>
> So MEG statements, for the time-being, will come only from Abigail.
>
> In other words, overlap members of MEG who retain membership on FAQ -
> i.e those who are members of both groups, with the sole exception
> being the liaison (who is temporarily Abigail) - no longer retain
> the right to:
>
> a) refer to MEG itself on the FAQ list.
> b) refer to MEG discussions on the FAQ list.
> c) refer to MEG policy on the FAQ list.
>
> - If this summary is incorrect, please explain how.
 
Members of FAQ who are also members of MEG retain their right, as of
course does every member of FAQ, to discuss whichever subject it
enters into their mind to discuss. The liaison is simply the only
person on FAQ empowered to make policy statements on behalf of MEG.
 
>
>
> In addition to this summation of policy, I have the following
> questions regarding it:
>
> - Who authorized Amanda's post to FAQ regarding MEG-policy?
>
> - Is Amanda's post to FAQ (following Debbie's, and prefixed "ADMIN")
> an accurate expression of MEG policy?
>
> - Is Amanda's post in violation of MEG policy as it has been
> presented thus far by MEG?
>
> - If it is in violation, then can FAQ-members expect a statement of
> contrition from MEG for this violation? If not, why not?
>
> - If Amanda's post is *not* considered to be in direct violation of
> MEG policy as presented thus far, please explain how it is not in
> violation.
>
> - If Amanda's post *was* a statement of MEG policy, and MEG, in
> fact, endorses it, then why did MEG see fit to violate its own
> policy two hours after the policy was first made evident to the
> members of FAQ?
>
> - Please outline the steps that are being taken to avoid a repeat of
> the violations of MEG's policy that took place on Wednesday morning.
>
> - What routes of appeal exist for MEG violations of MEG policy?
>
> - If not route of appeals exists, please explain why.
 
Amanda's post was written and approved before the final decision
about the installation of a liaison was made. It was decided that,
as the person who had made the security changes and written the
announcement, she should announce the changes. There were several
communications that needed to be made to MEG in a rather short time.
Amanda's notification to FAQ was the final step in an executive
decision made and carried out before the appointment of the interim
liaison or the current MEG-policy discussion restriction.
 
We can see that the timing was confusing; we apologize for the two-
hour delay, so that Amanda's post appeared after Debbie's.
 
Clearly, if Amanda *had* posted an unauthorized Admin, MEG would
already have clarified this to FAQ and taken appropriate action
towards Amanda.
 
>
>
> Debbie:
> As such, this is not a forum for discussion of MEG issues, and
> issues of that type raised here will not be discussed by MEG.
>
> Tom:
> If I am accurate in understanding MEG's policy statement, then
> actually:
>
> - Questions of MEG policy raised on FAQ by non-MEG members, in fact
> *will* be discussed by MEG, correct? They will be discussed by MEG
> via the liaison? If I am inaccurate, please explain how.

Questions of MEG policy which doesn't involve FAQ should not be
discussed on FAQ, period. Questions which do concern FAQ will be
forwarded to MEG by the liaison. MEG will discuss these questions
and return its answer via the liaison.
 
>
>
> I am also confused about the *role* of the liaison between the two
> groups, and have several attendant questions that do not overlap
> Cindy's list.
>
> - What questions can be posted to the FAQ list?
 
Questions that involve both MEG and FAQ issues (Example: Abigail,
can we post an ADMIN to the main list?)
 
>
> - What - if any - questions are to be sent directly to the liaison?
 
Personal questions (Example: Abigail, what's your favorite band?)
 
>
> - What questions are to be sent to HFfGU-owner?
 
Questions which involve the questioner personally, outside of his or
her role as a member of FAQ (Example: Abigail, why was my post
rejected?)
 
>
> - What, if any, are the distinctions and guidelines that FAQ members
> are to observe when deciding to whom questions should be sent?
 
I just outlined them.
 
> Given these questions regarding the MEG policy that Debbie posted to
> FAQ on Wednesday morning regarding FAQ, please revise said policy
> and have the liaison repost it to the FAQ list. If MEG declines to
> do this, please explain why.
 
I'm afraid I have no idea what you're saying here, Tom.
 
>
>
> - - -
>
> Now, the following questions are in regards to Amanda's post to the
> FAQ list on Wednesday morning.
>
>
> Amanda:
> The then-admin team leaped into action; and with great difficulty,
> managed to get the files restored; and set up security measures to
> avoid this type of occurrence in future. <snip>
>
> Tom:
> - Define `security measures.'
 
Measures which, if followed correctly, reduce the risk of the HPfGU
lists from being hacked. This involves protecting the lists
themselves as well as member accounts.
 
>
> - List the `security measures.' If this cannot be done, then why?
 
Mostly the measure involve selecting an appropriate password (not
one's birthday), frequent changes of that password, and the Yahoo
Secret Question feature (which allows one to enter one's account
without a password and is an easy back door). Security measures
also include limiting the number of people with the power to do
things that could destroy or damage the list.
 
>
>
> Amanda:
> So, because of these security concerns, night before last, three MEGs
> [Amanda, Dicey, and Kelley] made an executive decision and made the
> following changes:
>
> Tom:
> - Define `executive decision' in the context of the following
> questions:
>
> - In which cases are `executive decisions' made?
 
In cases in which members of MEG feel that an action needs to be
taken quickly, without consulting the entire list in the form of a
poll, which is the normal decision-making tool on MEG.
 
>
> - By whom may `executive decisions' be made?
 
An executive decision requires approval by three members of MEG.
 
>
> - To what degree are `executive decisions' decided upon collectively
> by the members of MEG?
 
Once a decision is made, it must be ratified retroactively by MEG
with a poll.
 
>
> - To what degree are `executive decisions' supported by MEG?
 
Assuming that the decision is ratified, it is supported to the same
degree that any MEG decision is supported.
 
>
> - To what degree are `executive decisions' made by members of MEG
> binding over the members of MEG?
 
Assuming that the decision is ratified, it is binding to the same
degree that any MEG decision is binding.
 
>
> - To what degree are `executive decisions' made by members of MEG
> binding over the members of FAQ?
 
Assuming that the decision is ratified and that it affects FAQ, it
is binding to the same degree that any MEG decision is binding.
 
>
> - Can `executive decisions' be contested or appealed? If so, how? If
> not, why not?
 
The decision can be contested by applying to MEG to reconsider it.
 
>
>
> I am also confused concerning Kelley's role in the `executive
> decision' that was made by Amanda, Debbie (who is not Dicey, or
> Sheryll), and Kelley.
>
> Kelley is not a member of FAQ, and her candidacy on FAQ has been a
> subject of discussion as of late. Therefore, I am not clear
> regarding the extent to which non-FAQ members of MEG may
> unilaterally (as in the case of the decision being discussed) exert
> control and/or influence over FAQ.
>
> - To what degree is a non-member of FAQ, who is a member of MEG,
> entitled to make decisions regarding FAQ?
 
Kelley is a MEG. An executive decision requires three MEGs to pass. A
member of MEG may make decisions regarding FAQ even if he or she is
not a member of FAQ.
 
>
> - To what degree are decisions made by a non-FAQ member that is a
> member of MEG binding on the members of FAQ?
 
In exactly the same way that decisions made by any MEG member are
binding.
 
>
> - May decisions made by a non-FAQ member of MEG be contested? If so,
> how? If not, why not?
 
Just as decisions by MEGs who are members of FAQ may be contested,
yes.
 
>
>
> Amanda:
> We stress: this was an interim security measure and has not changed
> anyone's moderator status. No further changes will be made without
> FAQ's input.
>
> - Define `interim,' as in, 'how long?'
 
Until FAQ can make an organized decision (such as, for example, with
the help of a poll) otherwise.

>
> - Define `input,' as in, 'how much?'
 
I have no idea - this will have to be decided on a case-by-case
basis.
 
>
> - Discuss briefly in the context of the following statement: "FAQ
> has made decision x." To what degree is MEG allowed to overturn
> FAQ's decision x? To what degree is FAQ allowed to appeal MEG's
> decision. If FAQ is not allowed to appeal, then why not?
 
At this point, without a specific scenario or reference, we would
say if a decision adversely affects other HPfGU groups, threatens the
future of the FP project, offends or hurts a listmember, or is a
security breach, then MEG can and will overturn it.
 
>
>
> Amanda:
> We further stress: as an interim measure, it can and should be
> revisited.
>
> Tom:
> - Does `we' refer to Amanda, Debbie, and Kelley? If the answer to
> this is no, then:
 
No.

>
> - Does `we' refer to the whole of MEG? If the answer to this is no,
> then:
 
Yes.

>
> - To whom does `we' refer?
>
> - Am I correct in interpreting Amanda's above statement to
> mean `will be revisited?' [By this I mean that if it is not
> revisited, it will not be `interim' but `permanent.' Is this a
> correct interpretation of Amanda's statement? If not, then how is it
> incorrect, and what is the statement that should have been made?
 
FAQ should revisit the issue of who has moderator powers, and
moderator authority, later when a liaison has been elected and
mechanisms for security have been established.
 
>
>
> Amanda:
> FAQ is an HP4GU list and MEG will be a part of the decision as to
> who has moderator authority and/or powers on FAQ, but the FAQ
> members and FAQ input are a vital factor as well.
>
> Tom:
> - Specifically define MEG's role as being `part of the decision.'
 
I am unable to do this, as MEG has not yet formulated a policy in
this matter.
 
>
> - Specifically define FAQ's role in the decision.
 
See above.
 
>
> - To what degree does MEG retain the right to overturn FAQ decisions
> regarding this particular sphere of FAQ operations?
 
I answered this already.
 
>
> - Can MEG overturns of FAQ decisions be contested? If so, how? If
> not, why not?
 
Again, I answered this.
 
>
>
> Amanda:
> When a non-interim MEG liaison has been identified, and an optimal
> number of moderators determined, that liaison will work with FAQ to
> organize a moderator selection process.
>
> Tom:
> - Define `optimal number of moderators.'
 
I can't. It hasn't been determined yet.
 
>
> - Elaborate in the following context: `Optimal number of moderators'
> as determined by whom?
 
FAQ, in alignment with MEG policies.
 
>
>
> Please revise and repost MEG's policy as articulated by Amanda in
> light of these questions. If MEG declines to do this, then please
> explain why.
 
I don't understand the need for this restatement. Amanda was
speaking in an official capacity on behalf of MEG. I believe I've
just clarified her statement, again speaking in an official capacity
on behalf of MEG. To restate what has already been said and
elaborated upon is nothing more then make-work.
 
Abigail
For the list administration




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 12 22:51:15 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:51:15 -0000
Subject: A Message From MEG
Message-ID: <boudh3+dhgh@eGroups.com>

Dear FAQ-ers,

16 questions from Cindy? And that's all *for now* ? And we tried
to count Tom's but, um, we lost count somewhere near fifty. Hey,
guys, we promised you some answers to Cindy's questions,
and we gave it our best shot.
 
Now it's our turn. We, er, do get a turn, don't we? You know,
when people want to volunteer, they usually say something
about how they want to give something back to the community.
They don't say they want to take part in a power struggle, still
less a strained dialogue between people who used to be
friends. That isn't our job and we don't want any part of it.
 
Cindy has sent over thirty messages that to -Owner since
August. We'd like to make it clear that we've spent a lot of time on
matters of concern to her already. We were happy to do it. We
really hoped we could work things out.
 
At this point we have to give up. There are many legitimate
issues which in an ideal world would be worthy of MEG attention.
Unfortunately, experience has shown us that dissatisfied
volunteers can raise issues faster than MEG can deal with them.
 
Mind you, we're not saying Tom or Cindy have done anything
wrong. Or that we haven't. It's just that usually if people have
chronic differences with the management of a volunteer group,
they'll leave. We *hate* asking anyone to go and we're sad to
say that sometimes that's the best alternative for everybody.
 
We don't blame anyone for being unhappy with the site. We've
long realized that HPfGU can't be all things to all HP fans. It is
not a rule that we have to accept everyone who volunteers. It is
not a rule that everybody has to work well with us. We realize
that some people enjoy the site and can't stand MEG. Oh well.
It's obvious that there wouldn't be a MEG without HPfGU. We may
need to point out that there isn't an HPfGU without MEG. It's a
package deal.
 
MEG's priority is the 11,000 members of HPfGU. Like you, they
accepted MEG as the leadership of HPfGU when they joined the
site, and it is for their benefit that MEG and FAQ exist. We humbly
believe it is MEG's responsibility to serve them by seeing that
both groups continue to function. We do not think that can
happen if vounteers in either group take an adversarial,
us-against-them attitude toward one other, regardless of how
many members MEG and FAQ have in common. If anyone here
no longer accepts MEG's authority as legitimate, we
invite you to withdraw your support by the same means that you
offered it, by unsubbing from our sites.
 
Thank you,
Abigail
for The List Administration Team




From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Nov 13 00:21:16 2003
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:21:16 -0000
Subject: A Message From MEG
In-Reply-To: <boudh3+dhgh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bouips+apph@eGroups.com>

Abigail, I've been talking with people behind the scenes trying to see
if this current crisis can be resolved, but I have to say this email
makes it look very unlikely. 

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> wrote:

>It's just that usually if people have
> chronic differences with the management of a volunteer group,
> they'll leave. We *hate* asking anyone to go and we're sad to
> say that sometimes that's the best alternative for everybody.

Now what bothers me about this is that you're asking people who are
active on FAQ to leave, while others who are purposefully inactive and
have no reason to be here are not asked to leave. Do I need to name names?

Eileen




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Nov 13 00:23:05 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:23:05 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] A Message From MEG
In-Reply-To: <boudh3+dhgh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000501c3a97c$4e99d890$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi!
 
Wow!  Abigail!  That was *some* response!  I haven't seen anything like
it since an associate gave me a draft of interrogatories in the last big
case I handled!  
 
I haven't much time for follow-up questions right now, but I have a few
reactions to this . . . 
 
 
Abigail:
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 

16 questions from Cindy? And that's all *for now* ? And we tried
to count Tom's but, um, we lost count somewhere near fifty. Hey,
guys, we promised you some answers to Cindy's questions,
and we gave it our best shot.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
I certainly can see that you all put a lot of time and effort into
answering these questions and in seizing control of the FAQ list.  I
imagine that changing a fun, friendly, collegial place where everyone
got along into something akin to a police state was a great lot of work
for MEG.  We just need that Code of Conduct now, and we'll be all set!
'Cause we already have this . . . 
 
Abigail:
 
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
>If anyone here
no longer accepts MEG's authority as legitimate, we
invite you to withdraw your support by the same means that you
offered it, by unsubbing from our sites.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Man, that sounds vaguely like "America, Love It Or Leave It!"  And we
know where that kind of thinking leads.  Oh, dear.  
 
Well, I can only speak for myself, but I'd say this is one heck of a sad
day for HPfGU and for FAQ in particular.  I put so much time and energy
into bringing this group along, and now MEG has completely *destroyed*
FAQ in just a few short days.  OK, then.  I will get on with the
business of yielding to MEG's Ultimate Authority over FAQ.  Yessirree.  
 
Cindy -- who thinks Eileen may have a point when she says MEG is going
to have to write the FAQs if there are to be any, but who thinks MEG is
up to the job 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 01:34:51 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:34:51 -0000
Subject: A Message From MEG
In-Reply-To: <boudh3+dhgh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <boun3r+empp@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> 
wrote:
>  
> You know,
> when people want to volunteer, they usually say something
> about how they want to give something back to the community.

Oh yeah. And we usually ask the community what the community wants, 
what the community needs, how the community feels, so we can serve 
the community best. Right?


> They don't say they want to take part in a power struggle, still
> less a strained dialogue between people who used to be
> friends. That isn't our job and we don't want any part of it.

Power struggle certainly isn't my job or my goal here. Unfortunately, 
I'm not very talented in ignoring a huge white elephant standing in 
the middle of my living room.


> Unfortunately, experience has shown us that dissatisfied
> volunteers can raise issues faster than MEG can deal with them.

Well, don't you think this *might* be significant?


> We don't blame anyone for being unhappy with the site. We've
> long realized that HPfGU can't be all things to all HP fans. 

No, it can't. It would be nice if HPfGU at least could live up to its 
name: Harry Potter for Grown-Ups. As in, *mature* people. 


> It's obvious that there wouldn't be a MEG without HPfGU. We may
> need to point out that there isn't an HPfGU without MEG. It's a
> package deal.

Yes. But nothing is forever, is it? The current constitution of MEG 
isn't permanent. MEG has changed radically since I joined HPfGU; it 
wasn't the first change, I'm sure it won't be the last. And I'm sure 
that even if MEG were to decide to delete the entire community 
tomorrow, there will be those who will roll up their sleeves and 
rebuild it, from scratch if necessary. 

The conception of the HPfGU community is sound, I believe. The 
execution is what, in my opinion, has been flawed. Only recently I've 
learned about the so-called Modgate, but the decadence in the 
administration was noticeable to me all the same.


> MEG's priority is the 11,000 members of HPfGU. Like you, they
> accepted MEG as the leadership of HPfGU when they joined the
> site, and it is for their benefit that MEG and FAQ exist.

When I joined, I accepted the concept of the HPfGU, the philosophy of 
the community, the structure and norms as described by the files sent 
to me right after my subscription. I accepted a leadership that 
claimed to be committed to the task of living up to what had been 
stated in those files.

I did not pledge allegiance to MEG when I joined HPfGU. Even if I 
had, the MEG group then was not the current MEG. 


> If anyone here
> no longer accepts MEG's authority as legitimate, we
> invite you to withdraw your support by the same means that you
> offered it, by unsubbing from our sites.

I accept MEG's authority as the authority de facto. Obviously, MEG is 
in command. MEG commands the Main List and sister lists, and it 
obviously commands FAQ as well.

But I do believe I am entitled to my opinions, aren't I? Aren't I 
entitled to think MEG has been doing a lousy job? Aren't I entitled 
to hope things will get better? Aren't I entitled to believe HPfGU 
will see better days when some of the current MEGs are replaced by 
more competent and less narrow-minded members?

Or will MEG only accept working with people that believe everything 
MEG does is good and fair and right?


Morgan D.




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 02:39:05 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:39:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: A Message From MEG
In-Reply-To: <boun3r+empp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031113023905.68265.qmail@web14308.mail.yahoo.com>

> > If anyone here
> > no longer accepts MEG's authority as legitimate,
> we
> > invite you to withdraw your support by the same
> means that you
> > offered it, by unsubbing from our sites.
>

<blink>

*What?* 

Is that the same philosophy that says if you
disapprove of a specific action of your government,
then you're unpatriotic? It *is,* isn't it?
[MaxCleland!CaptainCindy! Sorry, couldn't resist.]

Think about what you're saying here, guys. It *hurts*
me to have to write this, because I know and like and
respect just about everyone on MEG, and I -- frankly,
I'm wondering if you've all spontaneously lost your
minds, except it doesn't seem very likely -- and I
*hate* that I have to write this, but. . . well, as
Abigail said:

> Or will MEG only accept working with people that
> believe everything 
> MEG does is good and fair and right?

I mean, postulate:

1. We all love the list.

2. Some of us think that the list administration is
not doing the best job it could.

What *ought* those people to do? 

How is it for the best of the list if we just shut up
and unsub? How -- darn. This isn't that difficult,
guys. We love the list, we think it's in trouble, we
want to *help* it, OK?, and you're telling us that if
we criticize what we believe to be dangerous
*mistakes,* we have to leave. That we may participate
in and influence the list right up until the point
when we say "This is being done wrongly; this should
be changed."

I thought that MEG wanted HPfGU to become more of a
democracy; MEG might want to consider brushing up on
the notion of the "loyal opposition." 




Derannimer

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree



From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 02:51:28 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:51:28 -0000
Subject: A Message From MEG
In-Reply-To: <20031113023905.68265.qmail@web14308.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <bourjg+ih18@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, Susannah Myers <susannahlm at y...> 
wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if you've all spontaneously lost your
> minds, except it doesn't seem very likely -- and I
> *hate* that I have to write this, but. . . well, as
> Abigail said:
> 
> > Or will MEG only accept working with people that
> > believe everything 
> > MEG does is good and fair and right?

Uh... I said that. Morgan. Not Abigail. (Not Dicey, or Sheryll, or 
Debbie either. ^__^) That's probably irrelevant to Derannimer's 
point, -- with which I agree wholeheartedly --, but I wouldn't want 
Abigail to be blamed for something that it's my responsibility. 


Morgan D.




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 02:58:33 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:58:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: A Message From MEG
In-Reply-To: <bourjg+ih18@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031113025833.86460.qmail@web14303.mail.yahoo.com>


--- "Morgan D." <morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, Susannah Myers
> <susannahlm at y...> 
> wrote:
> as
> > Abigail said:
> > 
> > > Or will MEG only accept working with people that
> > > believe everything 
> > > MEG does is good and fair and right?
> 
> Uh... I said that. Morgan. Not Abigail. (Not Dicey,
> or Sheryll, or 
> Debbie either. ^__^) That's probably irrelevant to
> Derannimer's 
> point, -- with which I agree wholeheartedly --, but
> I wouldn't want 
> Abigail to be blamed for something that it's my
> responsibility. 
> 
> 
> Morgan D.
> 
> 

Aaack!

<whacks head against wall>

Yes, of course you did. Abigail was the one who wrote
what you were replying to. My apologies to the both of
you.



Derannimer, uncomfortably aware that this sort of
carelessness does not boost one's credibility

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree



From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 05:10:41 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:10:41 -0000
Subject: MEMB/ADMIN:  Questions for Abigail (WAS FAQ roles, and Dark Mark)
In-Reply-To: <bop98i+4dpd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bov3oh+ml2v@eGroups.com>

Hey, whoa! Lots of stuff to digest.

[Just so everyone knows, I don't have access from home, and so 
sometimes if I can't make it to the library or the internet cafe I'm 
cut off from HPfGU world entirely. Luckily I made it to this cafe 
tonight before they close, so I'll have a little time to read 
through everything. ;-) ] 

Anyways, Amanda, thank you VERY much for your offer to help, and I 
do have something in mind, if you'd be game. 

I haven't yet had a chance to go through the catalogues and run a 
Ctrl-F on certain key DE terms (like Dark Mark, power boost, major 
DE names and so forth - you know, only the major ones, nothing 
like "Rosier" or whatever) and going through the archives manually 
is fairly tedious... I've been making limited progress, but after 
several thousand posts I realized a major flaw in my method: I was 
only checking titles that looked related, and so I am fairly certain 
that I missed a lot of content using that method.

But if you have access from home, then I think it'd be much easier 
for you to download the catalogues and run the quick searches for 
those terms at your leisure... I mean, there's no rush or anything. 
When you've finished a catalogue, you could send or post relevant 
message #'s. No need to read them all yourself, or write anything; 
I'd be glad to do that (unless you *want* to write stuff). 

>From my end, it's *finding* the stuff that's the most arduous part, 
since I can't just save the catalogue files on a hard disk and work 
on them whenever, and the libraries and netcafes don't like it when 
stuff is downloaded. In fact, they make it almost impossible to do...

Anyways, if that sounds do-able, then thanks very much for the 
offer. 

Okay, now to check everything else. ;-)

-Tom




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 05:35:50 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 05:35:50 -0000
Subject: MEG's Answers to Tom
In-Reply-To: <boud80+dj24@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bov57m+72ri@eGroups.com>

Sorry - again, my time is short... I will be drafting a response 
eventually, but I thought that it would be best to respond to one 
thing immediately.

Me (in list of questions:
> Given these questions regarding the MEG policy that Debbie posted 
to
> FAQ on Wednesday morning regarding FAQ, please revise said policy
> and have the liaison repost it to the FAQ list. If MEG declines to
> do this, please explain why.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're saying here, Tom.

Tom:
Sorry. Mea Culpa.

Obviously, I had, well, we'll say "difficulty" understanding 
MEG's "policy statement" that Debbie posted here on, um, last 
Monday, was it? Anyways, since I didn't understand the statement, I 
asked all of these questions, some of which have been answered, and 
some of which have not. Clearly, if the statement was completely 
transparent was self-evident, then I wouldn't have had to ask the 
questions in the first place. Right?

Since my questions were concerning specific clauses in the "policy 
statement," and since "policy statements" should be clear - 
otherwise, what's the *purpose* of the policy statement in the first 
place - I have requested, and request again, that MEG takes the 
answers that have been provided to my questions - and Cindy's 
questions, where relevant - and substitute MEG's new answers for the 
originally unclear clauses in the first statement.

Obviously, I'm asking that this be done so that whenever a policy 
debate comes up later on - and I think it's safe to point out that 
they will, as *I* for one don't intend to go anywhere, despite MEG's 
urgings to the contrary; be assured that my continued presence will 
mean that MEG will occasionally have to answer questions - we can 
refer to one coherent document in order to find the answer.

I imagine that it would be much easier to consult a single MEG-
policy document in our Files section than it would be to trav\ce our 
steps backwards through the archives in order to find the original 
post and all these subsequent threads, or to re-ask the same 
questions over and over again. The latter, of course, would be a 
waste of everyone's time, and it would be much easier if the 
originally-posted (and at best "Vague") policy was revised in light 
of the questions I asked, and the answers I was given.

Succinctly: please take your answers to my questions, and substitute 
them for the unclear clauses in MEG's original policy-statement, so 
that it is clear what our newfound relationship is.

Make sense now? If not, please let me know.

Having fun,
Tom




From editor at texas.net  Thu Nov 13 10:45:08 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 04:45:08 -0600
Subject: DE draftee questions
References: <bov3oh+ml2v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000601c3a9d3$361efd20$0e58aacf@texas.net>

> Anyways, Amanda, thank you VERY much for your offer to help, and I
> do have something in mind, if you'd be game.
>
> I haven't yet had a chance to go through the catalogues and run a
> Ctrl-F on certain key DE terms

What's a "Ctrl-F"? I mean, I know it's a keystroke combination, but what's
it do, and where do you use it, etc. Sounds like a search function.

Do you have a list of the DE terms you've been using? We should search on
the same ones, shouldn't we?

~Amanda






From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca  Thu Nov 13 22:31:36 2003
From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:31:36 -0000
Subject: I will arise and go now
Message-ID: <bp10o8+4257@eGroups.com>

I'd like to thank everyone for the kind emails they have sent. I
really want to apologize for hurting those who did not deserve to be
hurt.

But I'm tired. It's only going to get worse. This isn't the place to
discuss the history of HPFGU, but sometimes there's no going back. I
think it's for the best that I leave.

I've been too sickened by list politics to post on the list itself
the last few months. Maybe this will change that.

I think William Yeats explained the feeling of escape much better
than I ever could.

I will arise and go now,
And go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there,
Of clay and wattles made;
Nine bean rows will I have there,
A hive for the honey bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.

And I shall have some peace there,
For peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the morning
To where the cricket sings;
There midnight's all a glimmer,
And noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet's wings.

I will arise and go now,
For always night and day
I hear lake water lapping
With low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway
Or on the pavements gray,
I hear it in the deep heart's core.

Eileen




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Nov 13 22:46:00 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:46:00 -0000
Subject: Do me a favor
Message-ID: <bp11j8+8rd1@eGroups.com>

Would you guys take my photos down when you unsub me?  I already
removed my bio, and I think that's all of my personal information that
needs to go.  

Thanks.

Cindy




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 13 23:39:34 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:39:34 -0000
Subject: DE draftee questions
In-Reply-To: <000601c3a9d3$361efd20$0e58aacf@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bp14nm+l6qh@eGroups.com>

Amanda:
> What's a "Ctrl-F"? I mean, I know it's a keystroke combination, but 
what's it do, and where do you use it, etc. Sounds like a search 
function.

Tom:
<grin> You know, I thought about just writing 'search,' but figured 
you were a PC-user. It's definitely a search function. ;-) 


Amanda:
> Do you have a list of the DE terms you've been using? We should 
search on the same ones, shouldn't we?

Tom:
Well, I haven't been able to *search* the archives per se, 'cause the 
search function only covers about 2000 messages or something.

I've been looking for any posts that use the following terms:

Death Eater
Dark Mark
Morsmordre
Dark Magic
Dark Arts
Walpurgis
Lucius (and) Malfoy
Karkaroff
Lestranges
(any other minor names that you think would be useful...)
Crucio/Cruciatus
Imperio/Imperius
Avada Kedavra

And a whole host of others, really, but I've been using the message 
headers to search, and you'll have the catalogue descriptions to 
use... Basically, anything that you think will be helpful.

Thanks again,

-Tom





From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 14 00:42:29 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:42:29 -0000
Subject: Message From MEG
Message-ID: <bp18dl+sap0@eGroups.com>

Dear FAQ-ers,
 
 As many of you already know, several hours ago, we sent Cindy a
 private e-mail in which we requested that she resign from FAQ. The
 decision to do this was reached unanimously, after much discussion
 and deliberation, the decision to do this was supported by a
 poll in which a large majority of MEG's members voted. There was
 one abstention and no votes against.
 
 Please believe us when we say that we did not come to this decision
 lightly. Most of us were Cindy's friends at one point or another. Many
 of us supported her during the first Modgate debacle, and others
 among us only came to FAQ because of her invitation. As list members
 we have enjoyed Cindy's intelligent, funny and thought-provoking
 posts and her Fantastic Posts essays. As members of FAQ, we have
 greatly benefitted from her experience, her energy and her leadership.
 As list administrators, many of us learned our stuff from Cindy, and
 others remain in awe of her ability to juggle several time-consuming
 list jobs and still remain actively involved in list discussion.
 
 However, we have come to believe that we are no longer able to work
 with Cindy, in any capacity. As we said in our previous letter, some fault
 for this no doubt lies with us, but this is not a volunteer organization.
 We cannot allow our relationship with one person to disrupt not one but
 two administration lists.
 
 We hope that FAQ may now begin to return to its stated purpose - the
 production of FPs. We realize that much remains to be discussed with
 regards to MEG's relationship with this list. We look forward to
 discussing these policy decisions with FAQ in an open, civil and
 hopefully friendly manner. We would prefer to put this matter behind
 us, but we recognize that some of you may wish to discuss Cindy's
 resignation/banning further. We recognize your right to discuss this
 issue on FAQ, but we would like to ask you to keep in mind that FAQ
 needs to heal, and another flame war will not help do this. Please
 consider sending any comments you have to the -owner address. We
 promise to acknowledge your letter immediately upon its receipt and
 to answer it as quickly and thoroughly as we can. We must remind you,
 however, that discussion of list policy has long been forbidden on any
 of the public lists. This includes discussing Cindy's
 resignation/banning.
 
 We close with our best hopes that this trying time is now nearing its
 end, and that we can all get back to doing the thing we love -
 participating in, and serving, the HPfGU lists.
 
 Abigail
 For the list administration




From pennylin at swbell.net  Fri Nov 14 03:24:07 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:24:07 -0000
Subject: Harry FP
Message-ID: <bp1hsn+udfg@eGroups.com>

Hi guys --

After a long absence, I hear the waters may be safe for me to stick my
head around the corner and ask about the status of work relating to
the Harry FP.  Ahem.  I'm afraid I don't have the stomach for parsing
back through the hundreds (or more?!) messages that have been posted
since I put myself on webview a few weeks ago, so if there have been
status reports and/or parceling out of specific sections, duties, etc.
for the Harry FP, please just point me to a message number(s).  

Based on Abigail's latest outline that I rec'd by individual email on
9/9, I'd say that parts of Section 1 interest me the most.  Plus, I
seem to recall that several people expressed greatest interest in
working on the Stoned!Harry, Super!Harry and other parts of Section 2.
   So, you can tentatively put me down for working on any or all of
1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 (though I can't be exclusively responsible for all 3
subparts I don't think).  Section 1.7 also holds some interest for me.

I fear with the holidays coming on that it'd be silly for me to take
on too much ..... but I could certainly get *started* and promise to
really get down to business in January.  

Penny
(who just wants to note that she 100% wholeheartedly supports MEG and
its actions regarding this FAQ list ........)




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 14 03:38:34 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (derannimer)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:38:34 -0000
Subject: Another One Bites The Dust
Message-ID: <bp1inq+e9fj@eGroups.com>

First off, a note:

I accidently hit the return key on a very unfinished version of this post; I deleted it 
from the main page right away, but those of you who receive email from this group 
may have gotten it in your inboxes. My apologies. (For those who didn't: it wasn't 
especially *rude,* or at least no more so than this is; it was just highly incomplete.)

Second off:
 
Admin's most recent message carries an unmistakable, bizarrely upbeat, undertone of 
"Well, now that the problem's gone, let's get down to business, what?" I am going to 
do Admin a favor by informing them *now* that that is only true if the problem was 
Cindy; if the problem was something in Admin itself, then the problem is still right 
smack in our midst. Guys, this one, I predict, isn't going to go away. Just fyi.

Third off -- well, look at the subject heading.

I'm unsubbing. From FAQ, and from HPfGU. Not right this minute; like the vastly more 
elegant Eileen, I plan to wait a week or two and tidy a few things up, but I am leaving. 
For several reasons; the first two only apply to FAQ, and the third applies to FAQ and 
HPfGU both.

1. I don't want to have to work with a group of people with whom I cannot 
communicate. I can't talk to the MEG members here. I can't talk to them because, 
even if this list were to get its problems merrily behind it in the next five minutes -- 
hey, never say never -- this would still have *happened,* and so there would always 
be this huge uncomfortable thing that We Don't Talk About Around Here. I simply 
can't do that, I don't know how to relate to people that way. I am haunted by the 
horrible illusion that everything could be made right -- or, at least, could be 
*understood* -- if people just talked about it with one another long enough, and 
earnestly enough. I cannot stay here and tiptoe around this thing and watch every 
word I say and *not talk about it.* I just can't do that, and if that is what I will be 
expected to do, then I prefer to leave now. 

I also can't talk to the MEG members because I simply have no idea what to *do* with 
them anymore. I know some of these people a bit, and, from what I know of them, 
they're decent and intelligent people. And I know Cindy, and I know that she is a 
decent and intelligent person. And this group of decent and intelligent people has, 
from all I've seen, wronged my decent and intelligent friend. And they don't seem to 
have a clue that they've even done it. What am I supposed to think about them? I 
know that they aren't ESE, I know that I enjoy their company -- and I believe that they 
are in the wrong. I'm not their enemy, but I can't be friends with them. I don't know 
how it would be appropriate to interact with them, or even if it could be.

Especially since they are no longer in a position to interact directly with me on these 
matters anyway, or with the rest of this list. I think I understand what the Liason 
position was *supposed* to do -- it was supposed to eliminate confusion, wasn't it, 
to get everyone on MEG singing off the same page? And I can understand why MEG 
thought that it might be a good idea. The problem, however, is that it removes list 
members one step further from the actual people on the other end of our emails. 
Maybe I could talk this all out with Abigail, or with Melody -- I can't talk it all out with 
the Consensus of MEG.
 
2. Anti-climatic as this may be, my current RL situation simply makes it unlikely that I 
would be able to get very much useful done here anyway. I have little free time, and 
what I have, I want to spend on something enjoyable -- I signed up on FAQ to write 
about Snape and Love Triangles From Hell and flying hedgehogs, not to experience 
an interesting case study in the doctrine of original sin. (Which I am beginning to 
believe is the only plausible explanation for how a group of intelligent and ostensibly 
adult **friends** -- you all were, at one point -- could get into something like *this* 
over something as ludicrously trivial as a Harry Potter discussion list. I love HP too, 
but it's not as if our decisions sway the fates of nations or anything.) 

3. Cindy. Come off it. MEG is threatening to ban her from the lists. I don't even know 
what HPfGU would look like without Cindy on it. I don't know if there would *be* an 
HPfGU without Cindy on it.

When I started posting on HPfGU, almost a year ago, after many weeks of lurking and 
reading old posts, I literally did not know who, say, John Walton was. Or Penny. Or 
Heidi. Or Neil. Or most of the other posters generally thought of as the "big posters," 
the old crowd. From my reading, the big posters -- *the* big posters, with the most 
and the best and the funnest posts -- were Captain Cindy and Elkins. The two of 
them were probably the two biggest reasons I stayed on the list. Well, Elkins hasn't 
been posting for months, and Cindy is now, apparently, leaving. If I say "If Cindy 
goes, I go," it isn't just out of friendship or loyalty; it's because if Cindy goes, the list 
simply won't be the place I delurked for anymore anyway.

But there is a loyalty issue as well: I honestly believe that Cindy has been shabbily 
treated by MEG. I don't think that she *was* entirely in the right during the Ongoing 
Unpleasantness; but I think that she was less to blame than MEG was -- in some 
cases far less -- and I also think that she is *right* in her criticism of recent 
administration policy; and I don't know that it would be right or appropriate for me to 
stay, believing that.
 
For all these reasons, I simply feel that it would be awkward for me to remain on 
these lists any longer. I don't know where else I can find such a consistently high level 
of Harry Potter discussion, but it is not worth this, and I'm getting out.

I realize that this decision contradicts much of the contents of a recent post of mine 
-- for the record, I do still love this list, but I frankly don't know what any one person 
could do now to help it, and I am in any event personally very ill-suited -- by 
temperament, by status, by ability, you name it -- to achieve anything.

I realize that this is an extremely long and perhaps a self-indulgent post, and I 
apologize for that. But I felt that I ought to try and explain the way things look from 
where I stand -- as I said, I still respect many people on both sides of this, to varying 
degrees, and used to be friends with many of them, and for the sake of that respect, 
if no longer for that friendship, I thought that I owed them an explanation. 

I apologize further to any individual members of MEG who may not be wholly 
comfortable with recent decisions themselves; I recognize that the blanket "the 
administration" designation does not apply equally to all administration members. 

I am connected with various past and current members of MEG in forums other than 
these lists -- if you are hurt by what I have written, please feel free to tell me that you 
no longer wish to acknowledge that connection. I will understand and respect that 
request. 

And I apologize to Cindy, in case I didn't go half far enough. 




Derannimer




From morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 14 11:21:40 2003
From: morgan_d_yyh at yahoo.com (Morgan D.)
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 11:21:40 -0000
Subject: Resigning as well
Message-ID: <bp2ds4+lstc@eGroups.com>

I have recently asked, "Will MEG only accept working with people that 
believe everything MEG does is good and fair and right?"

Obviously, that question has been answered.

This is therefore my resignation from FAQ. I will unsubscribe as soon 
as I make sure this message has been properly posted. 


Morgan D.




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 15 10:28:45 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:28:45 -0000
Subject: Harry FP
In-Reply-To: <bp1hsn+udfg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bp4v4t+4spo@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Penny Linsenmayer" <pennylin at s...> wrote:
> Hi guys --
> 
> After a long absence, I hear the waters may be safe for me to stick my
> head around the corner and ask about the status of work relating to
> the Harry FP.  Ahem.  I'm afraid I don't have the stomach for parsing
> back through the hundreds (or more?!) messages that have been posted
> since I put myself on webview a few weeks ago, so if there have been
> status reports and/or parceling out of specific sections, duties, etc.
> for the Harry FP, please just point me to a message number(s).  

OK, this is weird.  I was sure I'd responded to this yesterday.  Must be 
losing my mind.

Anyway, Penny, I posted the latest incarnation of the Harry FP outline in 
message #2418.  Several people responded and staked claims to chunks 
of it, but plenty is still up for grabs.  I also added a new file that might 
help searching for Harry-related posts to the files section - see message 
#2417 for details.

Abigail




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Sun Nov 16 10:56:52 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali Hewison)
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 10:56:52 -0000
Subject: FW: FP nomination?
Message-ID: <000501c3ac30$5dd677d0$bc536b51@pewter>

Tcy sent me this message a couple of days ago.
 
I have replied to her, thanking her for the posts. I know that we set up
a group expressly so that listees could make recommendations such as
this, but it has never been used. For the minute, I've asked Tcy to let
me know of any other posts which she'd like to nominate, and I'll
forward them here.
 
I'll ask Amy to forward us her Lupin draft so that hopefully we can get
an update out fairly soon.
 
On a different note, when I tried to open the whole enchiliada, I got a
note thanking me for my interest in WinZip, did I know it was a
fee-paying service, and would I like to proceed. what have I done wrong?
Should I have to pay to get it, or is there another way of opening the
file?
 
TechnoSquib Ali
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy and Mark Hunt [mailto:mphunt at sprintmail.com] 
Sent: 14 November 2003 15:08
To: Ali Hewison
Subject: FP nomination?


Hello, Ali
 
I hope I'm sending this to the right Elf...you were the list elf who
sent my "welcome from HPfGU" back in 2002...anyway...
 
I don't know what the process is for adding posts to the Fantastic Posts
arena...but as I haven't seen it updated in quite a while, I thought I'd
ask.  As much as I don't want to believe her, I'd love to see Pippin's
ESE!Lupin stuff posted there.  It started (as I'm sure you know - better
than I) with post 39362.  She said more recently (post 82732) that she
needed to update it.  But regardless of it's updated status...I'd love
to see it (in some form or other) added to FP. 
 
I'm sure there are many more fantastic posts...but this one stands out
in the crowd for me.  What can I do to help it along?
 
Thanks for whatever help you can provide.
 
Tcy (Tracy)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 17 03:34:39 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 03:34:39 -0000
Subject: FW: FP nomination?
In-Reply-To: <000501c3ac30$5dd677d0$bc536b51@pewter>
Message-ID: <bp9fkf+3d92@eGroups.com>

Ail wrote:

> On a different note, when I tried to open the whole enchiliada, I 
> got a note thanking me for my interest in WinZip, did I know it was 
> a fee-paying service, and would I like to proceed. what have I done 
> wrong? Should I have to pay to get it, or is there another way of 
> opening the file?

Dicey walked me through how to do this awhile back, but I didn't keep 
her directions.  I believe you have to download a "demonstration" 
version that you can use at no charge for a certain period of time.  
Dicey?

~Phyllis
who is also a techno-squib




From jmmears at comcast.net  Mon Nov 17 17:05:43 2003
From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:05:43 -0000
Subject: Message from Cindy
Message-ID: <bpav57+1fgi@eGroups.com>

This message from Cindy came to the Owner address for FAQ:




Hi, all,

 

Hey, I noticed something the other day that I think I'd best alert 
you about.

 

Remember a few months back when I agreed to acknowledge any FP 
submissions we received?  You know, nominations, as it were?  

 

I seem to have screwed up.  Before you unsubbed me, I went over to 
that list.  I thought I had set my delivery option on the Other FAQ 
List to "Individual E-mails," but for some reason I didn't receive 
these messages.  Maybe I just forgot.  In any event, none of these e-
mails ever got acknowledged.  Someone should take care of that, I 
think, as that would only be polite.

 

Again, sorry for dropping the ball on that.

 

Good luck, FAQers!

 

Cindy

 
Do we need to do something about this?  I haven't checked to see how 
many emails there are and how long ago they were sent.  I'm off to 
do that now.

Jo





From dicentra at xmission.com  Mon Nov 17 21:32:59 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (Dicentra spectabilis)
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 21:32:59 -0000
Subject: FW: FP nomination?
In-Reply-To: <bp9fkf+3d92@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bpbeqb+e44i@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" <erisedstraeh2002 at y...> wrote:
> Ail wrote:
> 
> > On a different note, when I tried to open the whole enchiliada, I 
> > got a note thanking me for my interest in WinZip, did I know it was 
> > a fee-paying service, and would I like to proceed. what have I done 
> > wrong? Should I have to pay to get it, or is there another way of 
> > opening the file?
> 
> Dicey walked me through how to do this awhile back, but I didn't keep 
> her directions.  I believe you have to download a "demonstration" 
> version that you can use at no charge for a certain period of time.  
> Dicey?

Go to www.downloads.com and type "WinZip" in the search window.  The
first entry should be WinZip 8.1.  Click that link, then click on the
"Download Now" icon.

You can use WinZip indefinitely without paying, but the unlicenced
copies have an annoying delay at the beginning to remind you to
purchase the software.

Hope that helps!

--Dicey




From editor at texas.net  Tue Nov 18 17:08:19 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:08:19 -0000
Subject: DE draftee questions
In-Reply-To: <bp14nm+l6qh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bpdjm3+tpga@eGroups.com>

Tom:
> <grin> You know, I thought about just writing 'search,' but figured 
> you were a PC-user. It's definitely a search function. ;-) 

Sorry to take so long to get back with you--many many things have 
conspired to eat my available time. Not least of which, roping a good 
friend into being Santa for my daughter's Girl Scouts thing. (he said 
yes, provided the Santa suit has *buttons* this time--long story)

Okay, here's where I explain not only how much of a TechnoSquib I am, 
but how *old* I am as well.

I *am* a PC-user. Just one that didn't use a computer until college, 
one who knows applications quite well, like Word, PageMaker, Excel, 
etc.--but not the world of HTML at *all.* I mean, at all. I used PCs 
for 20 years before I ever experienced the internet. The net became 
an aquaintance long after I had children, and I have had no time to 
learn much of its operational language.

I have an email account but no home page (although I have space); I 
don't know how to link; I have only recently mastered the LiveJournal 
codes for underlining and italicizing text. I don't have LJ icons 
because I don't know where to get or how to make icons. I am not 
stupid, but most assuredly HTML-ignorant.

So, within that reference: If you have seen Galaxy Quest: "Tell him 
[her] as you would a child." Use small words, short sentences.

Where is the catalogue we're searching? Is it simply the Yahoo 
message archive, or have sections been pulled out? Can we type arcane 
search functions into the Yahoo archive box, rather than just terms? 
What are a couple basic search functions (like CTL-F)? 

I feel so old. Publicly old. *sigh* Sorry.

~Amanda





From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 18 17:58:45 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:58:45 -0000
Subject: Message from Cindy
In-Reply-To: <bpav57+1fgi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bpdmkl+nhhs@eGroups.com>

Since it was my idea to acknowledge these posts, I'll take care of 
doing it.

~Phyllis

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "serenadust" <jmmears at c...> wrote:
> This message from Cindy came to the Owner address for FAQ:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, all,
> 
>  
> 
> Hey, I noticed something the other day that I think I'd best alert 
> you about.
> 
>  
> 
> Remember a few months back when I agreed to acknowledge any FP 
> submissions we received?  You know, nominations, as it were?  
> 
>  
> 
> I seem to have screwed up.  Before you unsubbed me, I went over to 
> that list.  I thought I had set my delivery option on the Other FAQ 
> List to "Individual E-mails," but for some reason I didn't receive 
> these messages.  Maybe I just forgot.  In any event, none of these 
e-
> mails ever got acknowledged.  Someone should take care of that, I 
> think, as that would only be polite.
> 
>  
> 
> Again, sorry for dropping the ball on that.
> 
>  
> 
> Good luck, FAQers!
> 
>  
> 
> Cindy
> 
>  
> Do we need to do something about this?  I haven't checked to see 
how 
> many emails there are and how long ago they were sent.  I'm off to 
> do that now.
> 
> Jo




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 18 18:00:01 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:00:01 -0000
Subject: Weasley FAQ-ers
Message-ID: <bpdmn1+qh23@eGroups.com>

I forwarded a terrific Percy Weasley post that I came across during 
list reading yesterday to the archives group.  Hopefully it will help 
the Weasley FAQ-ers!

~Phyllis




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 18 21:23:35 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:23:35 -0000
Subject: Search Engines (was: DE draftee questions)
In-Reply-To: <bpdjm3+tpga@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bpe2kn+lfp@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:

> Where is the catalogue we're searching? Is it simply the Yahoo 
> message archive, or have sections been pulled out? Can we type 
arcane 
> search functions into the Yahoo archive box, rather than just terms? 
> What are a couple basic search functions (like CTL-F)? 

This actually ties in to something I asked MEG a while ago, but no one 
seemed to know the answer.  Does anyone have any idea about the 
capabilities of the Yahoo search engine?  I know that on groups with 
less messages then HPfGU's 80,000+, I can get fairly accurate results 
by searching for keywords.  However, Amanda is right - can I use the 
same kind of boolean search functions that I would use in a Google 
search?  Can anyone testify as the accuracy of the search engine?  
Does it often give false positives?

For that matter, I had an idea a while back, and I'm too much of a 
technosquib in these matters to know if it's completely insane.  What 
would be involved in uploading the HPfGU database somewhere and 
making it truly searchable?  I know that several websites and blogs have 
generic search engines that are Google-powered.  If we could do the 
same thing, we'd be able to search by author, date or message number, 
and really use those boolean search functions.

Does anyone know if this is feasible?  More to the point, would it be in 
violation of copyright?  

Abigail




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 18 21:36:58 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:36:58 -0000
Subject: A Few Things
Message-ID: <bpe3dq+r275@eGroups.com>

Wow.

It looks like a lot happened since I posted last Thursday. I was in 
Philly all weekend, helping my sister move, so once again it all 
happened while I was distracted with RL stuff. 

My Yahoo inbox is now over-full (to 104%!), there have been 
resignations, and I just found the whole bunch of OTChatter stuff 
from this Sunday. 

It looks like people have been Making Decisions. Don't worry, though. 
I won't comment here, as I know it's not encouraged.

Replies to Ali and Amanda are in this post.


Amanda wrote, regarding catalogue searches:
> So, within that reference: If you have seen Galaxy Quest: "Tell him 
> [her] as you would a child." Use small words, short sentences.

Tom:
Hah! I love Tim Allen. He's sort of a guilty pleasure of mine. I used 
to watch 'Home Improvement' in secret, because the rest of my family 
found him to be completely vapid and marginally annoying. That 
roar/animal/man-laugh thing he used to do really cut me up, though.

Okay. Short Sentences. The catalogues are stored in FAQ's 'Files' 
section. So, click on 'Files.' Here, at the bottom, is the 'Whole 
Enchilada,' which I think consists of all the catalogues combined. 
(I'm not 100% on that, though. I've never been entirely clear on what 
the 'Whole Enchilada' is, exactly.) It's a .zip file. If this is the 
whole catalogue, then download and peruse at your leisure.

If the 'Whole Enchilada' isn't the whole catalogue, then go on to 
the 'InProgress' folder in the 'Files' section. There, you'll find a 
bunch of Excel Files that are the completed catalogues from when you 
guys did all that earlier. 

This is where you'd be especially helpful, from my perspective: since 
I'm normally working from computers that aren't mine, and since they 
frequently don't have Excel or Winzip, I either *can't* download 
these files consistently to work on them, or else I could, but it 
would be a major hassle that would involve first getting, and then 
installing the requisite software. 

So, if you could download these, you could do the Ctrl-F keyword 
searches at your leisure, and post the results here or mail them to 
me. Thanks again for your offer to help on this, Amanda... it will 
streamline my research time amazingly. There's no rush, as I have 
stuff to be getting on with now, but eventually I'll need to flesh 
out the outlines that I have.


Ali wrote of an elfling's FP nomination:
Tcy sent me this message a couple of days ago.

I have replied to her, thanking her for the posts. I know that we set 
up a group expressly so that listees could make recommendations such 
as this, but it has never been used. For the minute, I've asked Tcy 
to let me know of any other posts which she'd like to nominate, and 
I'll forward them here.

Tom:
I found a bunch of ESE posts during my archive searches for Accused 
Death Eaters (Order of the Flying Hedgehog.) I want to include a 
complete list in the DE FP.

Here it is again, and feel free to forward it to her if she likes ESE 
theories:

16453/ Hermione
16823/ Rita Skeeter
25480/ Ludo Bagman
29901/ E!McGonagall
30226/ E!McGonagall
30269/ McGonagall
30721/ Ron
34170/ Bagman
39362/ E!Lupin
39470/ Evil!McGonagall
30403/ E!Fudge
82746/ Molly
82860/ Lupin
82981/ Tonks

I'm sure that there are more, but I haven't found them all yet. Still 
looking, though.


Now. I also took the liberty of updating our 'Assignments' table in 
the Database, to take into account some independent projects and the 
recent resignations. Two of our FP teams are now completely unmanned, 
and others are fairly shortstaffed. So, some people are going to have 
to step up if we want to get some FP's produced.

This is the roster and the projects as they stand:

Mysteries and Inconsistencies - was Cindy. Now unmanned.
(Gryff) Weasleys - Jo Serenadust and Charis Julia
(Huff) Harry - Penny, Abigail, Dicey, Phyllis
(Rav) Lupin - was Gail and Morgan. Now unmanned.
(Slyth) Death Eaters - Tom and Amanda.
WW Government - Debbie
Quidditch - Ali
Legal Issues - Heidi


So, that's it from me. Off to a friend's house to watch 24. Man, that 
Jack Bauer just never gets a break. ;-)

-Tom




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 18 21:46:49 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:46:49 -0000
Subject: A Few Things
In-Reply-To: <bpe3dq+r275@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bpe409+mhjn@eGroups.com>

I wrote:
> 16453/ Hermione
> 16823/ Rita Skeeter
> 25480/ Ludo Bagman
> 29901/ E!McGonagall
> 30226/ E!McGonagall
> 30269/ McGonagall
> 30721/ Ron
> 34170/ Bagman
> 39362/ E!Lupin
> 39470/ Evil!McGonagall
> 30403/ E!Fudge
> 82746/ Molly
> 82860/ Lupin
> 82981/ Tonks

Ali - I forogot to include Debbie's revisit to ESE!McGonagall. It's 
at #83852.

-Tom




From heidilist at tandys.org  Wed Nov 19 00:47:50 2003
From: heidilist at tandys.org (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:47:50 -0800
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Search Engines (was: DE draftee questions)
In-Reply-To: <bpe2kn+lfp@eGroups.com>
References: <bpe2kn+lfp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1069202873.D497222@s5.dngr.org>


On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 4:26PM -0500, abigailnus wrote:
> For that matter, I had an idea a while back, and I'm too much of a
> technosquib in these matters to know if it's completely insane.  What
> would be involved in uploading the HPfGU database somewhere and
> making it truly searchable?  I know that several websites and blogs 
> have
> generic search engines that are Google-powered.  If we could do the
> same thing, we'd be able to search by author, date or message number,
> and really use those boolean search functions.
>
> Does anyone know if this is feasible?  More to the point, would it be 
> in
> violation of copyright?

As long as it wasn't publicly accessable it wouldn't violate copyright 
per the bigfile's license about access to posts for listish purposes.




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Tue Nov 25 12:30:16 2003
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:30:16 -0000
Subject: Unsubbing
Message-ID: <bpvi0o+5cvi@eGroups.com>

I'm leaving MEG in a couple of days and want to concentrate on OTC 
and the Main list, so I'm unsubbing here.

It was all a bit of a mix-up me being here in the first place, and I 
never did anything except stick a couple of posts in the database, 
so I don't think it'll be any loss me going.

Interesting times, but I hope you'll all be able to concentrate now 
on what you want to do for the community, when you want.

David




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Sun Nov 30 17:36:10 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:36:10 -0000
Subject: Getting FAQ off the ground
Message-ID: <bqd9qa+10hep@eGroups.com>

I've been thinking... (it does happen occasionally!)

This group has suffered a lot over the past few months, and I'm sure 
that some projects have not commenced, or progressed only very 
slowly as a result of the troubles.

Now, I hope that we have put the worst of the problems behind us, 
and we can start to rebuilt a team?

I therefore propose that people do start thinking about what 
projects they want to do. Do those who have signed up for a FP still 
want to do it, or would they prefer to do another?

How would we like this list to be run? At what stage should be bring 
in new blood, and how should we do it? Are we going to vote for 
facilitators. 

There are many other questions which I think we can now think about.

My proposition is, that whatever questions we might have, and 
whatever actions we might decide to take, that we don't aim to start 
going until the New Year. I am basing this proposition from my own 
selfish position - RL taking over nearly completely until January. 
But, I suspect that many others are in a similar position. I also 
believe that after such a tumultous period we owe it to ourselves to 
sit back a bit.

There are many who have not wanted to involve themselves in a group 
torn by internal wrangling: I would ask that they now come back and 
feel free to join in again. There have been many constructive 
suggestions made. What we now have, I believe, is a forum in which 
we can discuss them.

(My own feeling is that we shouldn't invite new members until we 
have regained some sort of a team spirit here - although I know that 
new members might help to regain our lost momentum).

Ali

(Speaking in her own personal capacity, and not for anyone or 
anything else).