ADMIN/MEMB: Autonomy baffles me

[Cindy C.]

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