ADMIN/MEMB: Autonomy baffles me

[Dicentra spectabilis]

--- 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