[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB: Autonomy baffles me

[Amanda Geist]

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