[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/ MEMB: Prospective Members

[cindysphynx]

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]