Question for non-MEGs

[heiditandy]

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Morgan D." <morgan_d_yyh at y...> 
wrote:
> 
> Anyway, months ago, when we were discussing what would be our 
ruling 
> regime and our linkage to MEG, some of you started muffling the 
> discussion and urging us all to work, not talk. I wrote a long 
> message saying why I thought that was a poor decision, that we 
would 
> only be postpoing the problems and making it a lot worse. 
Regardless, 
> the general reation was "let's work, not talk". 

: shrugs - I'm all for talk if that's what people want but it'll be 
painful, I'm sure. It was on MEG, and it's the reason why I left MEG 
after two and a half years, and it's the reason why a number of the 
former mods of the list quit the entire HPfGU universe and others 
are barely paying attention. 

> 
> So here we are. Again. FAQ made no decisions, and now MEG dictates 
> what FAQ must do. Which is, basically, "work, don't talk". 

Er. Where does it say that? 

Debbie's post said, actually, "FAQ is run as a semi-autonomous list, 
meaning that members of FAQ are responsible for much of the 
governance and certain policy decisions of the list."

How does that translate into "FAQ people, you are forebidden 
internal self-governance"?

 
> Would I like to have policies regarding FAQ seriously discussed 
here? 
> Yes, but honestly, I think it's too late. I think FAQ could now 
> discuss our policies to Doomsday, and it wouldn't make a 
difference. 
> More to the point, I think FAQ policies will *not* be seriously 
> discussed here even if MEG gives us permission to do so. There's 
just 
> too many MEGs and ex-MEGs here, too much resentment creeping in 
the 
> dark, too much we are not allowed to mention because it rubs on 
old 
> scars. 

It's easy for me to say this, as I'm skipping out of the country for 
a week tomorrow and don't have to deal with any aftermath, but I am 
all for pulling off the scabs and letting the blood flow. I have 
gone through tremendous angst this past year, and it actually caused 
me to leave MEG back in the middle of the summer, because I had been 
terribly hurt by some of the things that happened on MEG, and some 
things that were said to me by people who are still on the MEG list. 

But you know what? That actually doesn't mean I think they're doing 
a bad job running the public lists! Isn't that weird?

> Non-MEGs like me would start making suggestions based on 
> logic, on work strategy, on convenience -- while the MEGs and ex-
MEGs 
> would be talking about intrigue, betrayal, coup d'etats, and 
general 
> paranoia. What would be the point?

Well, that's what happens when a bunch of people (namely, those 
who've never been on MEG) have no idea what has happened on that 
list, and perhaps have been given incorrect or at least one-sided 
information. 

Personally, nobody other than Cindy has said anything that they 
think is illogical or unworkable about my comments about list 
scrubbing, and nowhere have I mentioned anything that could possibly 
be construed as intrigue, betrayal, coup d'etats or anything more 
than healthy paranoia that deletion of some emails might cause a 
loss of useful information (see the post I just made). So for all 
your complaints that you'd like policy discussions, you also seem to 
be ignoring my proposal. If you think it's illogical or 
inconvenient, then say so; I can take it, really. 

> 
> I'd love to see FAQ problems discussed FOR REAL. I don't think 
it's 
> possible. 

What sort of problems do you see? I see a lack of FP reports coming 
in, unfortunately, and I think there's been some discussion of that 
here. I see issues involving scrubbing - we've also been disucssing 
that. 

What else do you see as a problem?

> And I don't want to be told by MEG, "well, you can discuss, 
> but we don't have to listen to you, do we?" I feel it would be a 
> waste of saliva and energy. So unless anyone has a proposition 
about 
> how we can discuss all this crap for real, I'm opposed to it. 

Do you have a proposition? I'd be interested in hearing it, myself!

Otherwise, given that MEG has named Abigail to be the liason for 
now, and facilitate communications between FAQ and the MEG list, my 
only suggestion is to discuss things and have her forward/facilitate 
stuff. 

> I'm not 
> in the mood for farcical debates. I'd be insulted to be dragged to 
> one.

Why farcical? 


> Maybe non-MEGs should just leave and let MEG alone to deal with 
their 
> Boggarts in the closet.

I don't want to leave, sorry. I'm working steadily on the legal 
issues FAQ and may actually have an update for the fanfic FAQ thanks 
to an article I'm writing this weekend, although I won't be able to 
do it in full for about 2 weeks, I think. 

Heidi