ADMIN/MEMB: Autonomy baffles me

[Cindy C.]

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